= 


eee 


‘hy ee 
Porro 5 
we 


rE eet ris 2 i lata ; - spent 
; ares 


© 
res 


ernie rh ae. 
TES 
ual eeans 


aft ge 


< Feetemernte 
shee oe sae ee 
eens rres 


Pexteas 


$ 


pin cancsg ate thea 


ae 


fee it ee 
“ Felt ea Nhs na abled 
Cer Ere beats Siisiae es mee 
Bee See 
phe 
ose 
Poste aawe > 
Caines Ry tai 
re ne ne 
aon 
wea ew wate So 


* 


pening ge so 
age 


Riensen tices a 
Bop Dates te ear 
tee thnk ed hes An 


ae 


psstatt ary 


faa 

© Batepe ee 
east geo 
c ~~ ve. 


pie tinh be aoeon 


suber ge i 55 ; sees ‘ gamete 


eee my eh HGS EEL Sains ie ‘ ep —< 
sts Set ee Sanmeeues ; ee ; 
ore ‘ j s z Bee ae 5 parais 
. Pah Re 
sa ag at eve A ‘ 0 ey af - vy 2 ry NT POEL EE Ce ioe ae 

Snore eae Aa onsen y 2 ele pay ane =a . Sei eee 
3 2 fire ves egeFatac gsi ‘ : ‘ ; B 
tna tarred 4 
ht ow am 

mw be : . e | ae ew er 
4 * ; - =e +P Phen aes 


pase 

beans mre. mene * x : Ss : y sae 
me Soy eames : a - . ae ‘ se bie “ 

ors ‘ ‘ ie: : Rocrsaia tag beet tats 

Siedendheliced ai) 

EM ge bese oe oo 

Spaces S ate ae . : : . ven 

Brennen we 0 


Payee i 


Woe Earnie ot 
ee 


wesw Satan ieee 
Manne = te Pe Me 
i 


sey Spies 
mai ae canes eae’ 
Li Shapers se eponan he ares 


Pape aesse: 
State 

















A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


T. P. STAFFORD A.M., Th.D. 





AY STUDY \ 


i t / \ | 
: ' ’ 
P 
¢ f 
a 
ie: i / YN ri 
Pe a JQIVAL Ue 
eens 


OF THE KINGDOM. _ 


— 


“ 
By T. P. STAFFORD A.M., Th.D. 


Professor of Christian Doctrines and Evidences 
in the Kansas City Theological Seminary 


Author of 
“The Origin of Christian Science” 


and 


“A Study of the Holy Spirit” 





NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 


SUNDAY SCHOOL BOARD 
OF THE 


SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION 


ve 


Copyright 1925, 
Sunday School Board 
Southern Baptist Convention 
Nashville, Tenn. 


Printed in the United States of America. 


To 
Grace Utiey Starrorp, 
My Mate, 
“Steel True and 
Blade Straight” 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/studyofkingdomO0Ostaf 


PREFACE 


A few years ago I began to study with special in- 
terest the nature of the kingdom of God. It was 
obvious to me that some, who were speaking and 
writing on this important subject, were in no little 
confusion of mind concerning it. It seemed to me 
that I might do the cause we love some good by an 
orderly arrangement of the simple and primary 
principles of the kingdom, holding fast always to 
the fundamental and essential truths of the gospel. 
There is an imperative need that we give this scrip- 
tural and vital subject a thorough and balanced 
treatment, and not a partial and prejudiced one, in 
which “special pleading,” rather than an interpreta- 
tion of the Scriptures and an understanding of the 
doctrine, is the real objective. The reader must be 
the judge as to how well, or how ill, I have reached 
the end aimed at. 

The question of the millennium is a most vital 
one. Many would like to pass it by as of no 
moment. But it is a mistake to attempt to dispose of 
it in this way. It will not “down.” It enters es- 
sentially into the question of the nature of the king- 
dom. Bible interpreters are split into two well-de- 
fined groups determined by the issue of premillen- 
nialism and postmillennialism. There is no middle 
ground. One creates a little humor, but should not 
be taken seriously, when he says that he is neither 
a premillennialist nor a postmillennialist but a pro- 
millennialist. 

[7] 


In dealing with this great problem two mistakes 
have been made, the assumption on the part of some 
premillennialists that they represent the only possi- 
ble orthodox or Bible view and the position of cer-- 
tain postmillennialists, or antimillennialists, who 
rather concede this assumption and then take refuge 
in science and history as they understand them and 
in evolution and destructive criticism to establish 
postmillennialism or no millennialism. But this is 
rationalism and not Christianity. It is a discredit- 
ing of the Bible by those professing to be its friends. 
It is useless to try-to answer devout, though mis- 
taken, belief with arguments of unbelief. Infidelity 
has no rights in this court. In this discussion the 
arguments for postmillennialism are drawn from the 
Bible itself and not from a rationalistic interpreta- 
tion of science and history. The writer does not be- 
lieve in evolution as properly defined. He does be- 
lieve in science and in constructive criticism. 

It would be useless to attempt to give credit to 
those writers to whom I am indirectly indebted. To 
some, a few, I am directly beholden and these I 
mention in the course of the discussion. But I am 
not restating, nor reviewing, nor combining the 
thoughts of other men. My purpose has been to 
give an interpretation of the Scriptures. In study- 
ing and teaching the Bible for some years there has 
been given to me special opportunity to bring to 
its bar of judgment the various views of interpret- 
ers, their findings and their guessings. With pa- 
tience, and, I hope, with fairness and justice, I have 
dealt with these views, approving or disapproving 
them according to the standards of the Biblical 
court in which the case should be tried. “To the 
law and to the testimony” is the rule that has been 

[8] 


constantly ringing in my mind. I have tried to do 
nothing else than to give a statement for our day 
of the Christian doctrine of the kingdom. 

I hope that I have succeeded in the purpose to 
keep the discussion free from a controversial tone. 
I am dealing with positions, not persons. It gives 
me inward pain to dissent from the cherished theo- 
ries of some thinkers of great distinction, whom I 
honor, some of whom also I know personally and 
am proud to count my friends. But I am for con- 
science sake bound to do it. I ask the reader, who 
may not at first agree with the arguments, notwith- 
standing this fact, to give them careful considera- 
tion. It is the truth that we want to see and em- 
brace. No man’s opinion as such is of much im- 
portance. 

T. P. STAFFORD. 

Kansas City, Mo. 


[9] 


wher 
Pe alee 
Phi ' } 


“hea att 





CONTENTS 


Chapter 
I. THE REALITY OF THE SPIRITUAL ....... 17 


1. Position stated. 

2. Proof in Scripture, psychology and nature. 

8. The existence of the spiritual in us essential to: 
(1) The understanding of the material world. 
(2) The understanding and appreciation of 

the mind itself. 

4, Belief in the spiritual essential to: 
(1) A hopeful view of the world. 
(2) Moral living. 
(8) Heroic living. 
(4) Christian living. 


II. THE REALITY OF THE DIVINE PRESENCE 37 


1. The thought expressed in a promise of Christ. 
2. Preparatory statements as to the doctrine in- 
volved. 
3. The meaning of the promise of Christ. 
(1) God in some sense present in every place 
and in every thing. 
(2) God in some places and some things 
more than in others. 
(3) God not now in any place as he was in 
the Temple. 
4. The cause and conditions of the divine presence. 
(1) The divine will itself. 
(2) A mind in harmony with the mind of 
Christ. 
(3) Christian fellowship. 


[11] 


Chapter 
III. THE SPIRITUAL NATURE OF THE KINGDOM 57 


1. Importance of the subject. 
2. The two expressions, “Kingdom of God” and 
“Kingdom of heaven.” 
8. The kingdom of God like a kingdom of the 
world. 
(1) It has a king. 
(2) It has subjects. 
4. The kingdom of God unlike a kingdom of the 
world. 
(1) It is without territory. 
(2) It is not an organization. 
5. Relation of the kingdom of God to organiza- 
tions. 
6. The true kingdom of God not appreciated by 
the world. 


IV. THE SPIRITUAL NATURE OF THE KINGDOM 
(Continued) ee ae ole eee eee 719 


1. Relation of this chapter to the preceding one. 
2. The spiritual nature of the kingdom set forth 
and illustrated. 
(1) In its invisible character. 
(2) In the persons of the Holy Trinity. 
(3) In the character of its subjects. 
(4) In the methods of its propagation. 
a. No use of force. 
b. The appeal to reason. 
ce. The mission of miracles. 
d. The necessity of self-denial. 
(5) In the contrast between the Two Cove- 
nants. 
a. Scripture statement and explana- 
tion. 
b. Three steps in the development of 
this truth in the New Testament. 
8. Spirituality, the essence of true Christianity and 
the battle center through the ages. 
[12] 


Chapter 
V. CHRIST NOW ON THE THRONE ........ . 109 


1. The issue at stake. 
2. What is meant by the reign of Christ. 
8. Argument from the New Testament. 
(1) Statements of Jesus. 
(2) Statements from Paul and others. 
4, Argument from the Old Testament. 
(1) Prophecies said in the New Testament to 
be fulfilled. 
(2) Other prophecies. 
5. Argument from the relation of Christ’s office as 
king to his offices as prophet and priest. 
6. The need of an enlarged conception of Christ. 


VI. SOME DIFFICULTIES IRONED OUT........ 135 


1. The limitations of the human mind. 
2. The weakness of words. 
3. The problem of figurative language. 
(1) The Bible contains figurative language. 
(2) The kingdom must be set forth in figura- 
tive language. 
(3) Examples in Paul. 
(4) “Jerusalem” and “Zion” in the New 
Testament. 
(5) Examples in the Old Testament. 
4. The apparent but not the real meaning of cer- 
tain passages. 
5. Presence and power of evil in the world. 


VII. THE RETURN OF THE KING............ 167 
1. The historical and prophetic character of Chris- 
tianity. 


2. The Second Advent fundamental in Christianity. 

3. How Jesus taught it. 

4. How Peter, John, Jude, James and the author 
of Hebrews taught it. 

5. How Paul taught it. 


6. The meaning of his coming. 
[18] 


Chapter 
7. The manner of his coming. 
8. The time of his coming. 
9. The mental attitude Christians should have 
toward his coming. 


VIII. THE QUESTION OF THE MILLENNIUM.... 208 

1. Definitions and distinctions. 

2. The practical working-out of premillennialism. 

3. The premillennial method of interpreting Scrip- 
ture. 

4. Is the kingdom to be corrupted? 

5. Is the world getting worse? 

6. Premillennialism pessimistic as to the Commis- 
sion. 

7. The changes in the world at the return of Christ 
make a premillennial millennium impossible. 


IX. AN INTERPRETATION OF REVELATION 20: 
1 RI Ua At APA MRCS Che pu 225 
1. Certain general and important principles. 

(1) A book of predictions. 

(2) A record of some historical events. 

(3) Distinction between existence in heaven 
and existence on earth not always 
obvious. 

(4) A book of visions, pictures, symbols and 
figures of speech. 

(5) A specific principle or rule that will help. 

a. Must be applied. 
b. Examples of it in the book. 

(6) Did the founders of Christianity share 
the Jewish hope of a millennium? 

2. The passage as translated in the American 
Union Version. 

- Some symbols and figures of speech in it. 

. A certain starting point. 

- A second step. 

. Further progress. 

The meaning of the binding of Satan. 

. The significance of the “thousand years.” 


co IO OT B® OO 


(14] 


THE REALITY OF THE 
SPIRITUAL 


“For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world 
are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are 
made, even his everlasting power and divinity.” (Rom. 1: 20.) 


“While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the 
things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are tem- 
Praah but the things which are not seen are eternal.” (2 Cor. 
4: 18. 


“Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of 
things not seen.” (Heb. 11: 1.) 


CHAPTER I 


PR Ay AOE LE 
SPIRITUAL 


There are two, and only two, kinds of reality, 
material and spiritual, visible and invisible, tem- 
poral and eternal. 

Modern psychology and revelation are one on this 
proposition. They know only these two realities 
and no third. Old psychology, which affirms trichot- 
omy, is based on pagan metaphysics and a forced 
interpretation of Scripture. Heart, soul, mind and 
spirit in the Bible designate the same element of 
human nature. Man is not made of three parts but 
two, matter and mind or body and soul. 

In the creation of man, as related in Genesis, these 
two elements of his nature are specified and only 
these. (Gen. 2: 7.) Many other texts point in the 
same direction. (Cf. Ece. 12: 17; Matt. 10: 28; Luke 
23: 46; Acts 2: 31.) If some passages seem to sug- 
gest that man is a compound of three or more ele- 
ments, a better way to understand them is that the 
several words used are for emphasis and rhetorical 
effect and not for logical analysis. This verse, for 
example, has been cited to prove trichotomy: 
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy 
heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy mind, 
and with all thy strength.” (Mk. 12: 30.) But if it 


[17] 


18 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


proves that man is made of three parts it proves 
more, that he is made of four parts or even five. It 
is evident that the four nouns are put to use by Jesus 
to enforce as strongly as possible the duty of love to 
God and not to point out psychological distinctions. 

There are two real worlds, the world of things 
and the world of thoughts. Every attempt to ex- 
plain one in terms of the other or to deny either has 
led to absurdities. When the idealist says there is 
no matter, it is no matter what he says. When the 
materialist says there is no mind, we need not mind ~ 
what he says. We are in touch with both these 
worlds of reality. We are partakers of both. We 
live in both. 

The spiritual is real. It is as real as the material. 
The soul is as real as the body. Mind is as real as 
matter. 

God is spirit and God is real. He is not seen with 
our natural eyes. He is invisible. But in him we 
live and move and have our being. We know him. 
The purpose of the gospel is that we might know 
him. The idolater does not and cannot know him. 
His idol is a blind to his vision. Only he who knows 
the reality of the spiritual can know God. “No man 
hath seen God at any time,” that is with the eyes 
of the body; but “Blessed are the pure in heart; for 
they shall see God,” that is, with the eyes of the 
soul. 

Christ is real and he is now invisible. For thirty- 
three years he was manifest in the flesh but “now 
we know him so no more.” (2 Cor. 5: 16); and in 
eternity past he was Deity invisible, except where 
he chose to appear in some special way to men in 
the flesh. As the high priest of the Jews, when he 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 19 


offered sacrifice for the people on the great day of 
Atonement, passed out of sight into the most holy 
place, so Jesus has passed into the heavenly holy 
of holies and is beyond the reach of mortal eye. 
(Heb. 6: 20.) He has ascended to the place where 
he was before. But to believers he is real, most 
real. He is more real to us than he was to the dis- 
ciples when they discerned him by means of the 
senses. To Paul the ascended and invisible Jesus 
was as real as was the “descended” and visible Je- 
sus to Peter, James and John, as they knew him in 
the flesh. 

The Holy Spirit is not seen but is real. The name 
Spirit suggests his invisible character and was no 
doubt chosen for this purpose. A few times the 
Holy Spirit has manifested himself in visible forms, 
or miraculously, for a sign, or for the purpose of 
creating faith, but in his essential nature he is in- 
visible. 

It is strictly true to say the Holy Spirit is felt, 
not seen. But it is not one of the “five senses’ by 
which he is discerned. Christians at least have a 
“sixth sense,” that is a spiritual sense, by which di- 
vine realities are discerned. ‘Whom the world can- 
not receive; for it beholdeth him not, neither know- 
eth him: ye know him; for he abideth with you and 
shall be in you.” (Jno. 14: 17.) 

Now the Holy Spirit gives character to Christian- 
ity. The essence of Christianity is not anything 
outward or visible but something inward and in- 
visible and the presence of the Holy Spirit was so 
real and vivid to the writers of the New Testament 
and their knowledge of him so certain that they 
never asked for any proof that they possessed him 


20 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


but on the other hand considered their having the 
Holy Spirit as proof of many other things. If one 
stands in the sunlight that is shining all around 
him and whose warmth is felt in every part of his 
body, he needs no proof that the sunlight is. It is 
more certain to him than any proof can make it. 
He that has the Holy Spirit is conscious that he 
has him. 

The three great realities of the Christian life and 
faith, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, are 
spiritual and invisible realities. They must be so 
conceived if one would experience even an initiation 
into Christianity. ‘God is spirit and they that wor- 
ship him must worship him in spirit and truth.” 
(Jno. 4: 24.) 

We can see why Moses and the prophets in- 
veighed against idolatry. Their mission was to 
give the world a spiritual conception of God. We 
can see why the apostles and other teachers of the 
New Testament are silent as to the physical fea- 
tures of Christ and said as little as possible about 
his external life, the bodily qualities and relations 
of his person, and how, most of all, this is true of 
the Apostle John, whose plan it was, according to 
tradition to give us a “spiritual gospel.” Their mis- 
sion was to portray a Savior, the essence of whose 
life is spiritual, and who saves men by lifting them 
into spiritual fellowship with himself. All of the 
external and material that was necessary was what 
was sufficient to give Jesus an historical setting. 

The light or careless references to the great sub- 
ject of the Holy Trinity, which one sometimes hears, 
show that the speaker is “of the earth earthy.” 
They show that he is as yet a stranger to the king- 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 21 


dom of God, and must be converted in order to en- 
ter into it or even to see it. The kingdom of God 
rests on the three eternal spiritual realities of the 
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. He who does 
not grasp this truth is an alien and is lost. 

Since some may consider the above affirmations 
to be dogmatic and unscientific and belonging to the 
vague realm of the imagination, let us consider fur- 
ther that the best things of life, and the things that 
are experienced by us, here and now, and are there- 
fore most certain, belong also to the realm of the 
spiritual. 

The human mind is spiritual. It is not matter 
nor a highly developed or evolved state of matter. 
We see the brain but not the mind. I dare to say 
that if an instrument were invented by which we 
could see the movements of the brain as we think, 
if there be such movements, we would not know any 
more about the mind and its processes than we now 
know. I doubt if we could tell as much about our 
thoughts in that way as we now tell from facial ex- 
pression. By introspection we know the mind best, 
for the mind is the man himself. 

Now we know material things by means of the 
senses but we do not know the mind by any one or 
all of the senses. We do not see it, nor hear it, nor 
feel it, nor taste it, nor smell it. Nevertheless to 
us nothing is more certain than that the mind is. 
We are conscious of ourselves. We know that we 
are. And yet almost every proposition that we af- 
firm of a material thing we can deny of the mind; 
everyone, I believe, except existence. A material 
object has size, weight, impenetrability, location. 
All of these qualities we deny to the mind. The 


22 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


mind has no size, nor weight, nor impenetrability, 
nor location; that is, such location as can be deter- 
mined by the senses. It may not be strictly cor- 
rect to say that the mind is in the body. It may not 
be in the brain any more than in the countenance. 
We cannot locate it. Its “seat”? has never been 
found, either in the heart or in the head, or in the 
neural organism. Nor does it seem proper to say 
that it is diffused through the body. He who can 
explain the relation of the mind to the body has 
greater fame awaiting him than he attained who 
discovered the circulation of the blood. The serious 
speculation of Des Cartes, that the point of union 
of the mind and the body is the “pineal gland sus- 
pended in the midst of the brain,” does little more 
than to excite our amusement. 

All this should make it plain that the mind, the 
soul, the personality, since it is immaterial, does not 
submit to the “profane testing” of the senses. And 
yet nothing is more real to us than we are to our- 
selves. Self-consciousness is as vivid as conscious- 
ness. Des Cartes’ experience in doubting has great 
value. He found that he could doubt everything 
except that he, the doubter, existed. On this rock- 
bottom of experience and fact, beneath which doubt 
could not dig, he built up his system of philosophy. 

As life itself is a thing invisible so are the virtues 
and the noble qualities of life invisible. Truthful- 
ness, without which character has no value, is an 
unseen virtue. We see its manifestations in words 
and in deeds with which it clothes itself, but the 
attribute itself is hidden from our view. Honor, 
that crowns its possessor with conscious dignity, is 
not seen. But he has it who knows that he has it. 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 23 


Love, whose beauty poets cannot fully sing, whose 
dimensions mathematicians cannot measure; love, 
both divine and human, is a thing unseen, though 
its fruits are never unseen. Friendship, the golden 
thread of faith and loyalty that binds together in 
heavenly affinity kindred souls, is invisible. The 
motive of man, which renders sacred or profane all 
deeds in both divine and human courts, is invisible. 
Are these virtues not real? All virtues are real to 
him who has them. The skepticism of him who has 
them not is, therefore, of no value. 

Inanimate life even is invisible. We see its mani- 
festations, we do not see the life itself. We see the 
seed which the life hides or in which the germ re- 
sides but no microscope reveals the life principle, 
the reality itself. 

The very forces of nature, spoken of generally as 
visible, are on the contrary invisible. We see their 
effects only. We do not see the wind nor electricity 
nor the force of gravity. We do not see even the 
sun’s beam. We see the effects of these forces as 
they make their impact on material things. 

He who believes only what he sees has no expla- 
nation of what he sees. He lives in the animal’s 
world. The unbeliever who says we have no right 
to affirm the existence of the soul, because we do 
not know it apart from the body, is sufficiently an- 
swered by the fact that it is the mind only that af- 
firms the existence of the body. 

Let us go still further. Spiritual realities are 
more real than material things; and they may be 
more vividly realized. This is not what is com- 
monly believed, but it is what a thoughtful con- 
sideration will enable us to see. It seems to be the 


24. A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


meaning of Paul: “The things which are seen are 
temporal; but the things which are not seen are 
eternal.” (2 Cor. 4: 18.) 

When I say spiritual realities are more real than 
material things I would not suggest that material 
things do not really exist but only appear to. They 
exist and are real but their reality is not so lasting, 
has not so much meaning or significance, as spiritual 
realities have. Both exist but the spiritual have 
more truth and dominance. In this sense thoughts 
are more real than things, the mind more real than 
matter. 

This is true and can be appreciated as true from 
the simple fact that a man is more real to himself 
than are material things real to him, not excepting 
even the members of his own body. And this propo- 
sition is easily seen to be true simply because the 
thoughts of the mind, which, if they are not the 
mind itself, are its acts or agents, through which 
material objects are known, must be more vividly 
realized than things of the external world, whose 
existence and qualities are known only by means of 
such acts or agents. My thoughts are more real to 
me than the things of which I think. I am more 
real to myself than my hand is to me. The post 
that I bumped my head against was not real to me 
until I felt it. The measure of the reality that I 
then put into it was the measure of my sensation 
plus some reflection. 

This is not only the view that we as Christians 
may hold but it is the view of the greatest intellects 
of the world. In so thinking we are keeping com- 
pany not only with Paul but also with Plato. 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 25 


That we may appreciate more vividly the reality 
of the spiritual we will look at the subject from an- 
other angle. We are not convincing ourselves of 
what is profound or afar off but are seeing what is 
before us and what is obvious. 

1. The fact of the spiritual is essential to our un- 
derstanding of the material world itself. 

Things do not understand things. It is mind that 
understands things. 

Again, as soon as we begin to explain the world of 
things about us we assume the spiritual, that is, 
principles of truth and reality that are invisible. A 
fact is a mighty thing but it is not as mighty as its 
significance is, or as the truth involved in it and 
connected with it is. The meaning of a fact is 
mightier than the fact. 

Lyman Abbott has well said: 

“The power to look at things which are not seen 
is not peculiar to pietists and poets. It distinguishes 
man from the brute. It is the secret of all civiliza- 
tion, material and spiritual. 

“Tnnumerable men had seen apples fall from the 
trees. Newton perceived the invisible force which 
drew the apple from the tree, the invisible force 
which binds all the physical forces of the universe 
together and makes it one. Innumerable men had 
seen the lightning in the sky. Because Franklin 
and Morse and Edison perceived the invisible force 
which produces the lightning and the invisible laws 
which govern it, electricity which no man has ever 
seen and no man can define, carries our messages, 
lights our houses and moves our trolleys and our 
trains. The scientist differs from the casual ob- 
server because he looks at the forces which are not 


26 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


seen, learns their nature and the methods of their 
operation.” 

2. Does it need to be stated that the existence of 
the spiritual in the form of a person is essential to 
the understanding and appreciation of the spiritual 
mm any form or even to the conception of it? 

Only mind understands mind. Trees do not un- 
derstand trees, much less do they understand minds. 
When some mathematicians talk about a fourth di- 
mension I have no conception of what they mean. 
I can neither deny nor affirm. There may be such a 
thing. But my denial would not imply nor argue 
its existence. But if I should deny the existence of 
the spiritual, my position would be self-contradic- 
tory, because having the idea of the spiritual, the 
existence of which I deny, requires its existence in 
the form 9f my own mind. 

Once a man hearing a suspicious noise in his hen- 
house hurried out, gun in hand and demanded, 
“Who’s there?” The negro thief scared out of his 
wits, answered in a low tone from underneath the 
roost, “Nobody, boss, but de chickens.” His denial 
proved his presence. So the denial of the spiritual 
is proof of its reality. 

By that power or intelligence by which I say I 
have a body, by the same power or intelligence do 
I say I am other than my body. I believe God 
created me. I do not know the process by which 
I came to be but I know I am. Therefore I shall 
use no word that implies that I am derived from 
matter or reducible to matter. By the power by 
which I know things by that same power do I know 
Iam not a thing. I am a person. I think, I feel, 
I desire, I will, I am conscious of obligation. If it 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 27 


be said to me, “But at first your mind was a blank 
tablet and all that came into it came from without,” 
I answer: “That is a figure of speech, my mind 
never was a blank tablet; a white piece of paper 
cannot experience sounds and sights and learn to 
walk.” 

If it be said, “But there is nothing in the mind 
which was not first in the senses and, therefore, all 
knowledge comes from without the mind and 1s of 
a material character and hence the mind itself is of 
such a character,” I reply: “I refuse to be caught 
by any trick of words. I shall not reject what is 
evident in the light to accept what is obscure in the 
dark. I shall not give up consciousness for logic.” 
There is something wrong with such logic. I am 
conscious of being other than that kind of logic 
would prove me to be. You cannot explain mind in 
terms of matter. “Every thought change is a brain 
change and every brain change is a thought change.” 
That may be true. But if one uses it to conclude 
that the body dominates the mind he points his 
oun at his own head; if he uses it to show the domi- 
nance of the mind over the body he will “bring down 
the game.” 

Materialism is not only the denial of God; it is 
self-assassination; it is mental suicide. 

3. A belief in the reality and dominance of the 
spiritual is essential to a hopeful view of the world. 

Without it there is no such thing as progress or 
stimulus to progress. There would be events but 
they would point neither upward nor downward, 
for they would have no value. To speak of a “force 
that makes for righteousness” would have no mean- 
ing. A force that makes for righteousness must be 


28 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


an intelligible and purposeful force. Now if the 
spiritual does not dominate the material, all force is 
blind force. 

I know a preacher of heroic mold who said that 
he, when he began his .ninistry fifty years ago, took 
a confident stand for prohibition, because he did 
not think that a righteous God would let a wicked 
thing like the saloon endure in this country. His 
belief in God made him progressive. Edmond 
Burke recognized slavery as a great evil but saw no 
cure for it, great statesman though he was. Abra- 
ham Lincoln believed it could be destroyed and saw 
it done. A lawyer writing sixty years ago on the 
subject of woman’s suffrage prophesied with the 
lack of vision, characteristic of the pessimist, that 
though there was no good reason why women should 
not vote they probably never would. 

Again let us hear Lyman Abbott in these force- 
ful sentences: 

“The difference between a statesman and a politi- 
cian is that the statesman looks at the forces which 
are not seen, while the politician ignores them and 
prides himself upon being a practical man, without 
vision. It was because Washington and his contem- 
poraries saw an invisible power uniting men by a 
common hope, a common ideal, and a common re- 
solve that they devised a new kind of government 
resting upon the common sense and the common 
conscience of the people. It is because there were 
leaders who could look at and rightly appreciate the 
invisible forces of patriotism and humanity in the 
hearts of the sons and daughters of America that, 
breaking away from all the restraints with which 
a selfish policy bound us, we entered the World War 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 29 


and gave our money, our food, our sons, our daugh- 
ters, to save humanity from despotism and endow 
the world with liberty.” 

When Margaret Fuller said that she “accepted 
the universe,” Carlyle retorted, “Gad, she’d better.” 
John Burroughs comments on this incident thus: 
“Tt ought not to be a hard thing to accept the uni- 
verse, since it appears to be a fixture and we have 
no choice in the matter.” But it is asking too much 
of a rational being to tell him to accept a fact be- 
cause he has to, that is, just because it is a fact. 
Such skeptical dogmatism is disrespect for his in- 
telligence. The gracious God that gave him reason 
does not treat him so. The universe, as Carlyle 
himself, in one of his moods described it, we do not 
have to accept: “One huge, dead, immeasurable, 
steam engine, rolling on, in its dead indifference, to 
grind me limb from limb.” I count myself “better” 
for not accepting that sort of a universe. The pan- 
theist must accept it or must try to, for his god has 
not anything better for him. I agree rather with 
Stevenson when he says, “I believe in an ultimate 
decency of things; aye, and if I woke in hell, should 
still believe it.” 

We can believe heroically with Tennyson in a 
final glorious consummation of all things, because 
God is over all. He is at the helm. The ship will 
not go upon the rocks. To us it is a trackless sea, 
but not to him. God is on his throne; all will be 
well with the world, though much be wrong with it 
now. 

This is the Christian’s happy, hopeful and inspir- 
ing view of the world. I say not that he may have 
it. Isay he must have it. The pessimist is a sinner. 


30 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


“Right is right, since God is God, 
And right the day must win. 

To doubt would be disloyalty; 
To falter would be sin.” 

4. A belief in the reality and supremacy of the 
spiritual 1s essential to moral living. 

There are two kinds of laws, material and moral. 
The one tells us how things do act; the other how 
persons ought to act. These two conceptions are so 
different that it is strange that one term came to 
be the name for both. The one describes an order 
of facts; the other an ideal order. The one is what 
man discerns; the other is what God requires. Now 
certainly what God requires is as real as what man 
discerns, and being so, it becomes also for him a 
standard to regulate his conduct. For this truth 
Socrates lived and died. The Sophists denied it. It 
is easy to choose between Socrates and Protagoras. 

I hear a voice. It comes from without. It may 
be from across a great chasm. It says: ‘Thou shalt 
do right. Count not the cost.” It is the uncondi- 
tional imperative. My conscience answers: “Amen! 
I hear, I heed, I hesitate not. I will do it though 
the heavens fall.” Is this conscience of mine the 
echo of an imaginary voice? Is it emptiness answer- 
ing to emptiness or is it reality answering to 
reality? My conscience is not a fiction. It is 
not a usurper. To reign in me is its right. By so 
much as I am above the brute by that much do I 
feel obligation. By so much as I obey my con- 
science by that much am I conscious of moral worth. 
If God be not, then my conscience belies me. By so 
far as I put God out of my thoughts by that far do 
I kill my conscience. A moral being requires two 
things, conscience within and God without. 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 31 


I ought, says conscience. Therefore, J can. My 
mind is the master of my body. Three factors make 
character, heredity, environment and will. It is the 
last that is the determining force. By it I can move 
upstream or climb a mountain. By it I can organ- 
ize and direct every material element that belongs 
to me and much that is about me. Man is the 
architect of his own character. He can, if he wills 
to bolt the door, lock God out of the citadel of his 
soul. God gave him this mastery over himself. God 
respects him too much to break down the door. In 
this sense every man is a self-made man. 

If an engine pulls a long train of cars up a steep 
erade we do not put a golden crown on its smoke- 
stack and give it a reception. It did what it had to 
do when the steam was turned into the cylinders. It 
had no choice. It acted as it was acted upon. It 
moved in the line of least resistance. But when a 
man plays the game of life well we honor him. He 
could have done otherwise. If he plays it badly we 
blame him. If we say he could not have done other 
than to lie or to steal or to cheat we damn him the 
more. We denature him. A football of circum- 
stances is a thing, not a man. 

5. A beltef in the reality of the spiritual 1s essen- 
tial to heroic living. 

They died for a cause, those brave men who now 
sleep “row on row where poppies blow, in Flanders 
fields.’ It was not a delusion that led them on. 
They had a vision of truth more real than flesh and 
bones and blood. Bruno loved the truth of nature, 
not its mere facts, so much that he died for it. His 
soul was so loyal to it that he gave his body to be 
burned. Was it a delusion that obsessed him or a 


32 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


vision of the spiritual that possessed him? Did 
Socrates drink the hemlock for naught? Was he 
sane or was he insane? The answer of history is 
that he saw clearly in the light and the Sophists 
groped in the shadow. To him the spiritual was 
real. Plato saw the world of ideas, ideas ordered 
and harmonious like the stars in the firmament in 
a cloudless night. Was it a fancy? Was this world- 
conquering thinker a dreamer of dreams? 

Moses “endured as seeing him who is invisible.” 
So did all the heroes of faith. There is no other 
way to build a hero. He is in contact with another 
world. His citizenship is in heaven. It is only men 
with such consciousness who can, like Paul, count 
their lives as not dear unto themselves. 

Look at the author and finisher of our faith, Je- 
sus Christ himself. He “staked it all” on the reality 
and supremacy of the spiritual. He did not lay hold 
of a single material instrument. He did not rely 
upon a single worldly force. He did not appeal to 
a single motive that arises from the physical. He 
was born in a home most humble and lived in a dis- 
reputable town. He surrendered his earthly life in 
the prime of manhood. He sought for no influential 
“friends in court.” He refused the sword. He wrote 
no book. He arranged for no monument to be raised 
to perpetuate his name. He organized no force to 
carry on his work except a band of such persons as 
were drawn together by the same spiritual senti- 
ments that inspired him. He appealed to no worldly 
motive whatever but to love justice, mercy and 
truth. He was the most thorough-going idealist of 
history. But he was no visionary. He was a prac- 
tical idealist. He staked it all upon the reality of 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 33 


the spiritual and won and is still winning. He saw 
realities as they are. He was as conscious of the 
spiritual world as of the material and gave it the 
first place. ‘Be not afraid,” he said “‘of them which 
kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but 
rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul 
and body in hell.” (Matt. 10: 28.) By this principle 
he himself also lived. While he was saying to others 
to “seek first the kingdom of God” he himself was 
fulfilling this ideal. 

6. A belief in the spiritual is essential to Chris- 
tian living. 

All Christian living has two prominent elements, 
prayer to and fellowship with him who is invisible. 

What to the unbeliever is a Christian on his 
knees in prayer? It is superstition. It is self- 
imposed humiliation. It is talking into empty space. 
But to the Christian it is a vital breath. All space 
is for him filled with “relay-magnets” to get his pe- 
tition delivered to the throne. And his soul is so in 
tune with the divine “wireless” that he receives im- 
mediately a return message. He knows. He has 
“experimented” with it often and by it he never 
fails to put the Devil to rout, who not only trembles 
but flees when he sees a saint upon his knees. He 
knows the power of prayer as he knows the power 
of bread and butter and by the same method, ex- 
perience. “He that cometh to God must believe 
that he is.” (Heb. 11: 6.) 

But a Christian is as truly a Christian when stand- 
ing on his feet as when on his knees, when working 
as when praying. That is, we live as Christians 
when we have conscious fellowship and friendship 
with God. As the deep diver to the bottom of the 


34 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


sea lives by the air that is supplied to him from 
above, so does every Christian live in this world by 
the divine atmosphere that comes to him from 
above. If the contact be broken he is asphyxiated. 
We do not live by formulas or formalities nor by 
rote or dry rules. We live by a vital breath. God 
called Abraham his friend. Jesus called the disci- 
ples his friends. He said they must abide in him as 
the branches abide in the vine. Without him we 
can do nothing, without him we are nothing. It is 
said, “He breathed on them, and saith unto them, 
“Receive ye the Holy Spirit.” (John 20: 22.) 


THE REALITY OF THE DIVINE 
PRISE INGE 


I come to the garden alone, 

While the dew is still on the roses; 
And the voice I hear, 
Falling on my ear, 

The Son of God discloses. 


He speaks and the sound of his voice 
Is so sweet the birds hush their singing, 
And the melody 
That he gave to me 
Within my heart is ringing. 


And he walks with me and he talks with me, 
And he tells me I am his own, 

And the joy we share as we tarry there, 
None other has ever known. 


CHAPTER II 


Pino Wwe ACY Or EE DIVINE 
PRESENCE 


“Where two or three are gathered together in my 
name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Matt. 18: 
20.) 

A remarkable promise this is. As far as I am 
aware no other person in all history ever made such 
a promise, so daring, so challenging. 

Jesus could have made a false promise, that is, 
it is thinkable that he did. But if this were a false 
promise, it would have appeared to be such. The 
disciples then and since would have found it to be 
an empty boast, a bitter disappointment. So great 
is the claim for himself involved in this promise that 
if it is not true, Jesus is either a deceiver or of an un- 
balanced mind. If this is a false promise then Chris- 
tianity was born dead and Jesus was a failure and 
knew it. And more, he was covering up his failure 
by extravagant braggadocio. 

But this promise is a true promise. Jesus kept 
his word with his first disciples and he has kept it 
with all his disciples through the centuries. 
Wherever they meet together in his name he is with 
them. It is their privilege and also their duty to 
realize this spiritual fact, this dynamic truth. 

Let us frankly confess that we do not know all 
the meaning there is in this wonderful promise. I 


[37] 


38 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


think our danger is that we will put too little into 
it rather than too much. I prefer to load it heavy 
rather than light with meaning. 

As a preparatory step the following simple state- 
ments may be made: 

Jesus was, when he gave this promise, with the 
disciples here on earth. But he has in mind a time 
when he will not be here as he was then. He went 
away. He is not now with us as he was with them 
before his crucifixion. Therefore he does not mean 
to say that he will be with those that meet together 
in his name as he was then with his disciples. Again, 
he promised that he would come back to the earth. 
His presence, therefore, with two or three that meet 
together anywhere in his name must be a different 
kind of presence from what it was when he was with 
them three and a quarter years in the flesh, and for 
forty days in his resurrection body and different 
also from what it shall’be when he returns. 

It is a real presence but how shall we conceive it? 
With what words can we express it? 

First and foremost Christ is present in the person 
of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said to Philip, “he that 
hath seen me hath seen the Father.” (Jno. 14: 9.) 
God was in Christ. So also the Son is in the Holy 
Spirit. We have an illustration of this on the day 
of Pentecost. Jesus said in connection with the 
promise of the Holy Spirit, “I will not leave you or- 
phans: I come unto you.” (John 14: 18.) So on 
the day of Pentecost not only did the Holy Spirit 
come but Jesus also came. We are not to under- 
stand this as poetical or fanciful or figurative but 
as matter-of-fact language. It means what it says. 
The amount of meaning to be put into it, however, — 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 39 


depends upon the value of the truth of the Trinity. 
In a sense Christ is the Spirit. (Cf. 2 Cor. 3: 17.) 
If the measure of Christ is the measure of a mere 
man, I can brush away all mystery and say the lan- 
guage is fanciful or figurative. But since Christ is 
God it leads us into the depths of the mystery of 
the divine omnipresence. 

The promise of his presence is also the promise 
of his power. Where Jesus is, his power is. It seems 
also true to say that where his power is, he is. Je- 
sus said, “apart from me ye can do nothing.” (John 
15: 5.) If, then, we do something to advance his 
cause we have him with us. To have an influence 
for Christ is to have Christ. (Cf. Matt. 28: 19.) 

Again Jesus is present with those that have the 
same love and purpose that he has. Having a like 
mind with him is having him. John says that “he 
that abideth in love abideth in God.” (1 John 4: 
16.) As the sun is present in its beams of light so 
is Christ present in Christian graces; for they all 
emanate from him. In possessing them we possess 
him. We cannot say this of any mere man. To have 
patriotic virtues is not to have Washington with us. 
It is at most only to have a like mind with him, not 
actually to have his mind. Washington’s relation 
to political virtues does not equal Christ’s relation 
to Christian virtues. Washington’s is casual, Christ’s 
is causal. 

The above considerations have brought us to the 
borderland of great mysteries. I hesitate to say 
more. I am tempted to suggest that, since divine 
personality may not be subject to local limitation 
as human personality is, the presence of Christ with 
believers, who meet anywhere in his name, may al- 


40 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


low that he is with them also in person, but it seems 
we ought not to affirm this. The power and glory 
of his personal presence is the blessing that is re- 
served for his final advent. In speaking and think- 
ing on this subject we ought not to try to break 
through the limitations to which our minds are by 
nature necessarily subject. 

It will also simplify and clarify our subject to 
note here that, while in the Christian doctrine of 
the presence of Christ there is a kind of mysticism, 
‘it is a mysticism far removed from pantheistic or 
rationalistie mysticism, in which the worshiper or 
entranced thinker loses his personality and becomes 
identified with the object of his contemplation. 
Nothing of this kind is to be thought of as an ob- 
jective for the Christian worshiper. In commun- 
ing with Christ one does not become less himself 
but, if possible, more himself. 

The Neoplatonic mystics had a good illustration 
of their doctrine. They said that one could medi- 
tate so intently upon the “divine world,” its beauty 
and truth, as to forget himself, as to be unconscious 
of himself as other than the object which he was 
contemplating. They thus become one, as the face 
in the mirror is one with him whom it reflects and 
who beholds it. This was an high attainment, they 
thought, this identification of oneself with the uni- 
verse. It was ecstacy, it was deification, they fan- 
cied. Plotinus experienced this state of blessedness 
and delight three times, it is claimed. 

Now in a sense the image in the mirror is one with 
the object that it reflects, but in another sense it is 
not and to think them one, in the sense in which 
they are two, is to think one of them out of exist- 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 41 


ence. In pantheistic mysticism the personality of 
the worshiper or thinker vanishes. It sinks out of 
existence as the wave of the sea sinks back into the 
sea. It is absorbed in universal reality. Pantheism 
is, therefore, a thought-crushing and a stupefying 
system. Its devotees, if not its inventors, witness 
to this fact. It is debasing intellectual idolatry. But 
there is nothing of this in the communion of the soul 
with Christ. The Christian worshiper is conscious 
both of himself and of Another. To enjoy exhilirat- 
ing fellowship with him does not denature me. To 
lose myself in him is to find myself anew and bet- 
ter. ‘We all with unveiled face beholding as in a 
mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed into 
the same image from glory to glory, even as from 
the Lord the Spirit.” (2 Cor. 3: 18.) That is Chris- 
tian mysticism. It does not deform, it transforms 
the worshiper. It does not absorb, it enlarges per- 
sonality. It does not eliminate, it elevates individ- 
uality. 

With the foregoing observations in mind let us 
approach the meaning of Christ’s promise. 

I. God 1s in some real sense present in every place 
and in everything. 

Reason and revelation both affirm this. We can 
say of the great and gracious God, who is made 
known to us in Christianity, that he would not make 
this wonderful world and then forsake it. He does 
not withdraw himself from it nor vacate wholly any 
part of it. Solomon was careful to say when the 
Temple was dedicated, “The heaven of heavens can- 
not contain thee; how much less this house which I 
have builded!” (2 Chron. 6: 18.) Isaiah represents 
God as saying, “The heaven is my throne, and the 


42 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


earth is my footstool: what manner of house will 
ye build unto me? and what place will be my rest?” 
(Isa. 66: 1.) David sings: 

“Whither shall I go from thy spirit? 

Or whither shall I flee from thy presence? 

If I ascend into heaven, thou art there; 

If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, thou art there. 

If I take the wings of the morning, 

And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 

Even there shall thy hand lead me, 


And thy right hand shall hold me.” 
(Ps. 139: 7-9.) 


We face again the mystery of the divine omni- 
presence. 

God has a relation to space. He made it and 
keeps it as it is. He is not limited to it though it be 
infinite. It is not his attribute but his creation. 
There is, it seems, no empty space. God is in it; 
he fills it. 

God is in the objects and forces that exist in space. 
His energy preserves them and causes them to ful- 
fill the purpose for which he created them. Paul 
said to the philosophers of Athens that “in him we 
live, and move, and have our being.” He is in na- 
ture animate and inanimate. He is in human na- 
ture. Nature as such, with all its forces and laws, 
is good. ‘The heavens declare the glory of God; 
and the firmament showeth his handiwork.” The 
immanence of God is as necessary as his providence. 
As life is diffused through the body so is God in his 
universe. The universe is his tabernacle. There is 
no danger in this doctrine of the immanence of God 
provided we balance it with his transcendence. God 
is in all and above all. Nature is not his master, 
not his imprisonment. but his instrument. 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 43 


This age calls for a new and more positive em- 
phasis upon the truth of God’s presence in nature. 
Science consciously or unconsciously has pushed 
him into the background. We need to see God in 
the stars, the trees, the sea, the clouds, the moun- 
tains, as David did. We need to realize that he is 
near, sustaining all life, as Paul did. Science has 
kept us so hot on the trail of “second causes” that 
many have lost sight of the “first cause” of all. To 
the “modern mind” the metaphysician is a bore, the 
philosopher a joke and the prophet a speculative 
witness to be laughed out of court. It talks ever- 
more about matter, force, the laws of nature, gravi- 
tation, electricity, evolution, life, etc., as if it really 
knew what these things are. It keeps our eyes so 
intensely on the ground that we hardly get a glimpse 
of the sky. The fact is that these expressions may 
serve to conceal the truth as well as to reveal it. 

Now after all, what is the meaning of this lingo, 
matter, force, gravitation, electricity, law of nature, 
evolution, life, etc.? To some, these words mean 
just anything except God. With them they push 
God out of his world. But to others they mean his 
power and his presence. It all depends on one’s at- 
titude of mind. Logic does not compel either con- 
clusion. 

Thomas A. Edison says with emphasis: “We don’t 
know one-millionth of one per cent about anything! 
Why, we don’t even know what water is. We don’t 
know what light is. We don’t know what gravita- 
tion is. We don’t know what enables us to keep on 
our feet, to stand up. We don’t know what electrici- 
ty is. We don’t know what heat is. We don’t 


44 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


know anything about magnetism. We have a lot 
of hypotheses, but that’s all.” 

Since science confesses ignorance faith has her in- 
ning. 


“A fire mist and a planet— 

A crystal and a cell— 
A jellyfish and a saurian, 

And caves where the cave men dwell; 
Then a sense of law and beauty, 

And a face turned from the clod— 
Some call it Evolution, 

And others call it God. 


“A haze on the far horizon, 
The infinite, tender sky, 

The ripe, rich tints of the cornfields, 
And the wild geese sailing high— 
And all over the uplands and lowland 

The charm of the goldenrod— 
Some of us call it Autumn, 
And others call it God. 


“Like tides on a crescent sea beach, 
When the moon is new and thin, 
Into our hearts high yearnings 
Come welling and surging in— 
Come from the mystic ocean, 
Whose rim no foot has trod— 
Some of us call it Longing, 
And others call it God.” 


The powers and principles of nature, by whatever 
name they are designated, are best understood as 
the potency and presence of God. I would so “call 
a0) 

2. God is in some places and in some things more 
than in others. 

Theologians in attempting to explain the omni- 
presence of God, sometimes affirm that he is wholly 
present in every place. Concerning this statement 
I want to say two things. First, that I have been 
trying for thirty years to understand it and have 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 45 


not succeeded. Secondly, that I have discovered 
that nobody can know what it means, because it is 
a contradiction in thought. This is one of those 
deadening ideas that were brought over into Chris- 
tian theology from pagan philosophy. It is in- 
digenous to the soil of Neoplatonic pantheism but 
in the Christian system it is a “foreign substance.” 
It has no place in the mind that thinks of God as 
aperson. It is akin to that doctrine of the divine de- 
crees In which God’s one eternal plan swallows up 
all plural and temporal purposes, so that the latter 
become only human and imperfect conceptions of 
God’s providence and power. This speculation has 
the same pagan source as the other. If these theories 
were held to rigidly they would make all objective 
revelations of God impossible; for they make it im- 
possible for God to “break into” time and space in 
which spheres or limitations we live and think. We 
know very little about time and space and, therefore, 
very little of God’s relation to them. But one thing is 
_ as certain as is Christianity itself and that is that 
God reveals himself in time and space. God’s deeds 
and purposes in time and space are real to him. 
Time and space are as real to God as is the incarna- 
tion. I accept the difficulties connected with this 
view rather than by attempting to avoid them so to 
relate God to eternity and so to conceive his omni- 
presence, or his relation to space, as to abstract him 
from the world in which we live and think. If, then, 
God’s manifestations in time and space are real to 
him they ought to be real to us. It is not our think- 
ing them so that makes them so. It is their being 
so that should make us think them so. 


46 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


I have pointed out the above futile attempt to 
explain the divine omnipresence that we might the 
more appreciate the simple truth that Christ’s 
presence with believers is to be received as a fact, 
a fact known and experienced, rather than under- 
stood or explicable. Its mystery does not lessen its 
actuality. In this respect it is like the fact of my 
own presence in my body. I cannot explain it. I 
must accept it. 

Jacob slept and dreamed a ere in which he 
saw the angels of God ascending and descending on 
a ladder and heard God speaking to him. When he 
awoke and thought on the matter, he said, “Surely 
the Lord is in this place; and I knew it not.” God 
was there as he was not in any other place. 

Moses at Horeb saw the bush burning and con- 
tinuing to burn. As he drew near to investigate the 
“oreat sight,” God stopped him with the command, 
“Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off 
thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy 
ground.” God was there, at that bush, as he was 
not in any other place of all the desert. 

God was in the “ark of the covenant” as he was 
not in any other space of three dimensions since 
the world began. (Ex. 25: 22.) The Israelites real- 
ized this when they crossed the Jordan. (Josh. 3: 
15, 16.) The Philistines realized it when they cap- 
tured the ark and put it in the house of Dagon. (1 
Sam. 5: 3.) ; 

God was in the temple in Jerusalem as he was in 
no other temple made with hands. In it was the 
“Most Holy Place in which was the ark of the cov- 
enant with the Mercy Seat,’’ where God accepted 
the offerings of the high priest on the great day of 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 47 


Atonement. Jerusalem was a holy city. God was 
in it as he has been in no city since cities were built, 
and as he will be in no city forevermore. He said 
he would “cause his name to dwell there.” (Deut, 
12: 11; 2 Chron. 6: 20.) Jesus himself affirmed this 
truth when he told the woman at Sychar that “sal- 
vation is from the Jews.” (John 4: 22.) 

3. But God being present in the temple in Jeru- 
salem as he was not in any other place 1s no longer 
true. 

Jerusalem was forsaken by him. Jesus said, “Be- 
hold, your house is left unto you desolate.” (Matt. 
23: 38.) The ark has long since vanished. The tem- 
ple was demolished. When Jesus died on the cross 
the “veil of the temple was rent in two from top 
to bottom.” (Matt. 27: 51.) It was no longer a 
sacred place. From that instant on it was no holier 
than any other place. After that God was not there 
in any sense other than he was, for example, in 
Mount Gerizim. This is the meaning of what Jesus 
said to the woman at Jacob’s well. “Woman, be- 
lieve me, the hour cometh, when neither in this 
mountain nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the 
Father.” (John 4: 21.) In stressing the contrast 
between the worship of the pre-Christian age and 
that of the Christian age Prof. Stalker, in his Ethic 
of Jesus, says: “The difference was immense be- 
tween the religious notions of a Hebrew who, in or- 
der to deal with God about himself, had to travel 
to the sanctuary at Jerusalem and offer a sacrifice 
to Jehovah there, through the intervention of a 
priest, and that of one who, wherever he might be, 
in the utmost corner of the land, could by shutting 


48 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


his eyes and lifting up his hands, deal with the Deity 
there and then.” (p. 278.) 

We are living in a better age. Now we can wor- 
ship God, if our hearts are right, in one place as well 
as another. But for fourteen centuries God was 
worshiped most truly in the tabernacle and the tem- 
ple of the Jews. This was so as long as God willed 
it to be so. 

If it be said that it was true because of the lim- 
ited development of the people of that age and that 
God adapted his revelation to their imperfect men- 
tal conceptions, I freely grant it. But the adapta- 
tion was a reality and not a semblance. It was an 
actual adaptation and not a pretense. The ark 
was holy; the temple was holy. God was objec- 
tively present in them. It was not superstition that 
regarded him as dwelling there. It was God him- 
self that said he would dwell there. Daniel in 
Babylon prayed with his windows open toward Je- 
rusalem. This was not superstition. It was see- 
ing the real and the spiritual. It was believing that 
God was at one point in dynamic contact with the 
world, as he was at no other point. 

But, if we should imagine that any place or thing 
is holy now as the temple was, we would make a 
great mistake. No house of worship should be 
dedicated with the belief that God dwells in it as 
he did in the temple of the Jews. The notion that 
God limits his blessing to some sacred spot of ground 
is inconsistent with spiritual Christianity. It would 
turn the wheels of progress back nineteen centuries. 
The contention of Stephen, the first martyr among 
the disciples, was that the idea of the temple being 
a sacred place had become obsolete and was no 


fr 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 49 


longer true. Jesus, as we have seen, taught the 
same. The Jews in their narrowness would not 
receive this truth and they have lost their leader- 
ship as a religious force in the world. 

Mohammedanism says that, if one would reach 
the highest blessedness it has to bestow, he must 
make a pilgrimage to Mecca. If he be poor or de- 
crepit or residing in a far-off land it matters not; he 
must do it. This defect alone renders the whole 
system impotent. Only superstitious and ignorant 
minds will subject themselves to so cruel and so ir- 
rational a burden. 

The rallying cry of the Crusades, “Rescue the 
holy sepulchre from the hands of the infidels,” was 
possible only in a dark age. Had not Christianity 
at that time been half pagan that cry would have 
evoked no response. To New Testament Chris- 
tianity there never was a “holy sepulchre” a “holy 
stairway” or any place or thing that is in itself 
holy. 

4. We come then to ask why is any place or thing 
holy? Certainly there 1s a distinction between the. 
sacred and the secular. But why this distinction? 
What is the difference between them? What is the 
cause or condition of the divine presence? 

First, we may say that God is present in any place 
because he wills to be and as he wills to be. This 
has ever been true. He knows how to “hide him- 
self’ and how to manifest his glory. Nothing is 
holy unless he declares it so, it matters not how 
much human superstition thinks it so. And if he 
declares it to be holy, it is, no matter how much un- 
belief denies it. When John Knox threw the image 
of the Virgin into the water to see, as he said, if it 


50 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


would swim, he did nothing sacrilegious, though 
many thought he did. God was not in that piece 
of wood. But he was in John Knox, though many 
counted him profane. 

Secondly, God is present when there is a mind 
fitted to receive him. ‘Where two or three are 
gathered together in my name,” he says. A world 
of meaning is in those three words, in my name. 
Christ is “at home” to those who meet together in 
his name, and always gives them a welcome. “In 
his name” rings the door-bell of heaven. The name 
Jesus is the heavenly shibboleth. He who can pro- 
nounce it has extended to him the golden scepter. 
It is the “open sesame” to the kingdom of God and 
its power. 

There is no music in the mountains where there 
is no ear to hear it. There is no beauty in sky or 
flower where there is no eye to behold it. Though 
there may be manifold forms, all colors and infinite 
shimmering waves of light, there is no beauty 
where there is no eye to see it. So where there is 
no mind to commune with God there God is not; 
where there is such a mind there God is. And the 
measure of the intensity of his presence is the meas- 
ure of the realization in the believer of his pres- 
ence. 

Where was God a.p. 26? He was with John the 
Baptist and those that heeded his call to repent- 
ance in the wilderness of Judea. Where was God 
A.D. 27? He was at that spot of the Jordan where Je- 
sus was baptized. He was there with more meaning 
than he was in the temple in Jerusalem. And wher- 
ever the holy feet of the Son of God trod, on moun- 
tain, sea or traveled road, there God was. Where 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 51 


was God on the day of Pentecost? He was in the 
room where the waiting disciples were. He was no 
more in the Holy of Holies as he had been; for, it 
was no longer the Holy of Holies. 

“In my name” is no magic phrase, but there is 
wonderful power in it. He who uses it without 
meaning or sincerity will get no result, unless it 
be acurse. (Cf. Acts 19: 13-16.) Those who speak 
it truly honor Christ. They give him his rightful 
place in the world. And, more, they align them- 
selves with him. “In my name” describes their con- 
dition of mind and declares their purpose. It means 
that Christ’s will has become their will and, there- 
fore, that his power has become their power. The 
bank of heaven will honor any man’s check for any 
amount issued in the name of Christ. It was or- 
ganized to do business on this basis and is still 
solvent. 

Notice that it is not believers who happen to 
meet together in some place that are promised his 
presence, but those that meet in his name. It is 
a meeting, the purpose of which is to honor Christ, 
that is spoken of. 

Christ has all spiritual power and it is his plan to 
release that power upon the world through spiritual 
channels; that is, men and women who have the 
same love and purpose that he has. If they have 
his mind it is as natural for them to become chan- 
nels of blessings as for the irrigation ditches to sup- 
ply water from the reservoirs above to the fields be- 
low. If they have it not it is as impossible for them 
to help others as it is for water to flow uphill. 

“Where two or three are gathered together in my 
name”’—not in the name of science, not in the name 


52 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


of humanity, not in the name of culture, not in the 
name of business, not in the name of society, not in 
the name of the state, not in the name of the church, 
not in the name of morality, and not in the name 
of all these put together. The good that is in them 
all and the power that is not in them is in that 
name which is above every name, the talismanic 
name—Christ. 

A third cause or. condition of Christ’s presence 
is the association of believers. ‘Where two or three 
are gathered together in my name.” — 

There is a blessing for the solitary believer. He 
who alone opens his heart to God and trusts him 
is a temple of the Holy Spirit. He who, sick and 
weary, forsaken and friendless, turns to God has 
God. He is with him as truly as he was with Jacob 
when he slept with a rock for his pillow. But there 
is a blessing for the “two or three” that is not for 
the one alone. They need more, they deserve more, 
they receive more. Jesus did not say, “Where one 
prays in my name there Iam.” That is true. But 
in the great promise we are considering he speaks 
of a different presence or a greater power. “Jesus 
seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy, 
Son thy sins are forgiven.” (Mark 2: 5.) It was 
the faith of the four men that Jesus rewarded. 

It is a fact that the kingdom of God moves for- 
ward by the effort of believers who are associated 
together. One Christian alone does not do much. 
It was when a company of disciples were together 
on that great and notable day of Pentecost, united 
in faith and purpose and prayer, that the Spirit of 
power was poured out upon them. If they had been 
separated in their several homes that wonderful 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 53 


gift of God would not have been bestowed upon 
them. And this has ever been the method of the 
Spirit. He comes especially upon those that are 
associated together in Christ’s name. It was when 
Carey got a little association to co-operate with him 
that the missionary movement began in England. 
It was two or three young men praying together at 
a haystack that kindled the missionary flame in 
America. 

The number of believers is immaterial. It is the 
quality of their faith that counts. He said, “Where 
two or three are gathered together in my name.” 
He did not say, “Where three or four are gathered 
together in my name.” There is no objection to 
the greater number, but Jesus’ promise is to the 
smallest possible company of believers. A great 
number is not essential to spiritual power. One 
long ago said, “There is no restraint to the Lord 
to save by many or by few” (1 Sam. 14: 6), Jesus 
said, “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s 
good pleasure to give you the kingdom” (Luke 12: 
32). 

A state secretary of a large denomination is 
quoted as saying that the influence of churches of 
less than a hundred members is negligible. He does 
not understand the nature and source of spiritual 
power. It is not man power but divine power that 
is needed and promised. Many are nervously anx- 
ious or ambitious for the unionizing of all Christian 
people. They seem to think that for the kingdom 
to move forward all Christians must get together in 
some sort of organization. They ought to learn bet- 
ter the laws of the kingdom. History shows that 
if they could get what they want there would be 


54 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


little or no value in it. “Not by might, nor by 
power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts.” 


(Zech. 4: 6.) 


THE SPIRITUAL NATURE OF 
THE KINGDOM 


Zion stands with hills surrounded, 
Zion, kept by pow’r divine: 

All her foes shall be confounded, 
Tho’ the world in arms combine; 

Happy Zion, 
What a favored lot is thine. 


Ev’ry human tie may perish; 

Friend to friend unfaithful prove; 
Mothers cease their own to cherish, 

Heav’n and earth at last remove; 
But no changes 

Can attend Jehovah’s love. 


In the furnace God may prove thee, 
Thence to bring thee forth more bright, 
But can never cease to love thee; 
Thou art precious in His sight: 
God is with thee, 
God thine everlasting light. 


CHAPTER III 


Mo ReoOPIR ET WU ALY NADER EE Or 
THE KINGDOM 


Only a few subjects, if any at all, are more im- 
portant than the nature of the kingdom of God. It 
is very necessary that we have a correct understand- 
ing of it. We cannot know what the gospel is, nor 
the meaning of the petition, “thy kingdom come,” 
nor the duty to “seek first his kingdom,” nor any of 
the parables of the kingdom, nor anything con- 
cerning the millennium, nor the meaning even of 
the return of Christ, unless we know what the king- 
dom of God is. There are many babblers babbling on 
this subject, who do not take time to consider the 
nature of the thing of which they speak. 

The two preceding chapters are a preparation for 
what is said in this one and in this chapter, I am 
laying the foundation for almost all that is to fol- 
low. I ask, therefore, that the reader will weigh 
thoughtfully what is now being said. There is noth- 
ing profound to be set forth. But clear thinking is 
required. 

The expressions, kingdom of God, kingdom of 
heaven, and other expressions equivalent in thought 
to these, occur in the New Testament some two 
hundred times. They abound in the Gospels and 
in Paul’s letters. Only Matthew uses kingdom of 
heaven, but he does it some thirty times or more. 


[57] 


58 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


It has been said that Matthew uses kingdom of hea- 
ven instead of kingdom of God because the Jews 
shrank from the use of the name God. But the fact 
that kingdom of God is also frequent in Matthew 
is against this explanation. The two expressions 
are not identical in meaning. They designate the 
same institution, but kingdom of heaven points 
to the spiritual nature of the kingdom, whereas 
kingdom of God does not, but merely designates the 
kingdom as belonging’to God. The noun heaven in 
this phrase is in the Greek always plural and should 
not suggest location but quality. “Of heaven” is 
equivalent, it seems, to our adjective heavenly or 
spiritual. In Ephesians Paul uses the expression 
“in the heavenly places,” or better translated “in 
the heavenlies,”’ not to signify the location but the 
quality of that of which he speaks. (Hph. 1: 3; 2: 
6; 3: 10.) To the Jews the kingdom of God could 
very well mean and was apt to mean a worldly 
kingdom of some kind. It could mean to them the 
kingdom of Israel and did naturally mean this. Not 
to allay their scruples then, but to correct their pre- 
judice Matthew designates the kingdom of God as 
the kingdom of heaven; that is, a heavenly or spirit- 
ual kingdom. Paul describes the kingdom as a 
“heavenly kingdom.” (2 Tim. 4: 18.) 

The purpose of this chapter is to show that the 
kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom. If the de- 
finitive phrase “of heaven,’ does not require this 
conception, there are many other considerations that 
do. The adjective spiritual is, it seems, the word 
that fits the case best. I would not modify its mean- 
ing nor attempt to coin a better word. 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 59 


There is a reason why John the Baptist and Jesus 
and the inspired writers of the New Testament 
called the movement, that we now designate as 
Christianity, the kingdom of God or the kingdom of 
heaven. That reason is that Christianity is both 
like and unlike a kingdom of the world. The noun 
kingdom points to the similarities between them, 
the modifying phrases “of God” and “of heaven” 
point to the dissimilarities between them. 

The kingdom of God is in some respects like a 
kingdom of the world. If this were not true the 
name kingdom would not have been given to it. 
We can count upon it that in inspired writings 
words do not conceal but reveal the truth. Chris- 
tianity is not a democracy, nor an oligarchy, nor 
anarchy nor socialism, but it is a kingdom. It is 
a monarchy, an absolute monarchy, an autocracy, 
a theocracy. There is order in the kingdom of God 
and not chaos. There is law and not license. 

The kingdom of God has a king. Christ is the 
king. He makes the laws. There is no appeal from 
his decision. With respect to his legislation there 
is neither “initiative” nor “referendum.” He alone 
is sovereign. He shares his throne with no other. 
His rivals are “thieves and robbers.” 

When Jesus was born “wise men from the East” 
came to do homage to him as one born to be a king. 
His enthusiastic disciples hailed him on the Mount 
of Olives as king and he refused to silence them. 
Before Pilate he “witnessed a good confession,” af- 
firming that he was a king. He died as a martyr to 
the claim. It was the title of the superscription 
on his cross. Paul thinks of him as a king. “He 
must reign,” he says, “until he hath put all ene- 


60 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


mies under his feet.” (1 Cor. 1: 5.) He calls him 
“King of kings and Lord of lords.” (1 Tim. 6: 15.) 
Christ only is the true king. All others are noth- 
ing but usurpers or semblances or at most mere sym- 
bols. 

The kingdom of God has subjects. Every king- 
dom must have subjects. If not it is only ideal, not 
actual. The kingdom of God is an actual kingdom. 
Jesus spoke to Pilate of his disciples as his “ser- 
vants,” and said that if his kingdom were of this 
world they would fight for him. Never did a 
king have subjects so loyal, so obedient. Their 
subjection is complete but voluntary. It is enthu- 
silastic self-surrender; it is unreserved self-abandon, 
but for a cause that appeals to their intelligence. 
They count not their lives dear unto themselves. 
They hold nothing back. They give all and wish 
they had more to give. Had they ten thousand 
lives to give they would all be his in service and 
sacrifice. To them not his will but his wish is law. 

He commands some to lay their heads on the 
block and they obey. He commands some to ascend 
the scaffold and they hesitate not. He tells some 
-to lie down upon the ground, have kerosene oil — 
poured upon them and be burned as straw and 
they draw not back. He requires some to face a 
frowning, sneering, hating world, inflicting tortures 
long drawn out, and they refuse not. He calls upon 
some to languish in jail and they do it singing 
psalms. He sends some into far-away jungles and 
they go with radiant hope. Because he commands 
it, the heaviest burdens are light and the hardest 
tasks easy. Where he tells them to go the winter 
winds are aS summer zephyrs. As he has trans- 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 61 


formed the cross of shame into a symbol of glory 
so do they transform ugly duty into service beauti- 
ful. To them the way of the cross is the way of 
life. They find that his yoke is easy and his burden 
light. There is a sweet reasonableness in it all, a 
constraining, compelling love. They go not as gal- 
ley slaves driven to their task, but as free men to 
inviting adventure and noble heroism. If they live 
they live for him; if they die they shed their blood 
for the most worthy of causes and go to receive 
eternal crowns. They are not unfortunates; they 
are martyrs winning immortality. They are not 
slaves; they are kings and priests unto God. To 
serve their Cesar is to reign. 

I say again, that no wordly potentates have had 
such willing, loyal, enthusiastic, intelligent subjects. 
They were not worthy of them. Their genius was 
not sufficient to develop them. 

It seems reliably reported that Napoleon made 
the following utterance. Speaking to one of the 
officers that accompanied him in St. Helena, and 
comparing Christ with the great men of the world, 
he said: (‘I think I understand somewhat of hu- 
man nature, and I tell you all these were men, and 
I am a man, but not one is like him; Jesus Christ 
was more than a man. Alexander, Cesar, Charle- 
magne, and I myself founded great empires; but 
upon what did the creations of our genius depend? 
Upon force, Jesus alone founded his empire upon 
love, and to this very day millions would die for 
him.” , (Geikie’s Life and Words of Christ, p. 2.) 

We said above that the kingdom of God is not a 
democracy. We were there thinking of the rela- 
tion of Christians to Christ. He only is Lord. But 


62 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


when we think of Christians in relation to one an- 
other, the kingdom of God is a democracy. What 
God did not see but wished to see in the kingdom 
of Israel he realizes in his spiritual kingdom. 

Accordingly, believers are called a “kingdom and 
priests,” and a “royal priesthood’ (Rev. 5: 10; 
1 Pet. 2: 9), that is, Christ only is their king and 
their priest, and they all are brothers and are equal. 

This is the law of the kingdom: “Be not ye called 
Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are breth- 
ren. And call no man your father on earth: for one 
is your Father, even he who is in heaven. Neither 
be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even 
the Christ.” (Matt. 23: 8-10.) Of these three com- 
mandments the Protestants break two and the 
Catholics all. Neither are willing wholly to eliminate 
orders and to come to the simplicities and equalities 
of the gospel and the kingdom of God, nor to as- 
sume the personal responsibilities that a spiritual 
democracy imposes. 

I heard of a Baptist woman who said: “I am tired 
of being told that I should read my Bible and study 
and think for myself. I want some one to do all 
this for me, and I am going where I can get it done 
for me.” I am sure she could soon find some priest 
or preacher that would relieve her of all responsi- 
bility at whatever price she was willing to pay. If 
she did it she sold her birthright for a mess of pot- 
tage, for that is all such a soul could receive in such 
an exchange. | 

Prof. Huxley has said: “I protest that if some 
great power would agree to make me always think 
what is true and do what is right, on condition of be- 
ing turned into a sort of clock, and wound up every 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 63 


morning before I got out of bed, I should instantly 
close with the offer.’ Now there is many a priest 
with his confessional and many an ecclesiastic with 
his creed that are ready to undertake to do for men 
and women all that. But the price is that they shall 
become “clocks.” 

I once saw an interesting sight just outside the city 
of Rome. Dr. Whittinghill, our missionary there, 
had been showing me the catacombs and other things 
of interest that afternoon, and as we were return- 
ing he called my attention to a carriage in the road 
ahead of us and some personage of note dressed in 
a robe, with an attendant, walking a little in ad- 
vance of the carriage. He explained that it was a 
cardinal who was out for his daily walk. “Now 
look,” he said, “at that company of monks coming.” 
They were coming to greet the cardinal. And as 
they approached from the other side of the road 
they filed across and got down upon their knees 
before him and kissed his ring. And then as I thought 
of that act of spiritual prostitution I saw much more. 
I saw the “mark of the beast.” I saw a great power 
professing to be religious but worldly and Satanic 
in nature, with a genius for organization and ruler- 
ship that is the marvel of the centuries, that would 
demoralize the world, denature men and despirit- 
ualize Christianity. And I heard Jesus, triumphant 
in his temptation, commanding: “Get thee hence, 
Satan; for it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord 
thy God and him only shalt thou serve.” (Matt. 
4: 10.) 

Now we turn to the points of contrast between 
the kingdom of God and kingdom of the world. The 
unlikeness between them is suggested, as we have 


64 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


said, by Matthew’s favorite designation, kingdom 
of heaven, and is shown by many arguments to be 
very great. 

An earthly kingdom must have territory. The 
kingdom of heaven has none. 

We are in the habit of saying that the sun does 
not set upon the kingdom of Great Britain. Her 
lands girdle the globe. Her extension in longitude 
and latitude is part of her greatness. Nothing is 
more biting to Germany in her present humiliation 
than the reduction of her territory. There may be 
a people or nation that has no country, but history 
knows no kingdom, nor democracy either, that has 
endured for any length of time without territory. 
But the kingdom of God has none and, what is 
more, it can not be possessed of any. In the sense 
that it owns any limited piece of the earth’s surface 
it owns it all. That is, as a man or a nation owns 
land, the kingdom of God owns none and claims 
none. In another sense, however, it owns it all; 
for “the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof.” 
But with possession in this sense we are not here 
dealing. It would not be possible to mark off any 
portion of the earth’s surface and confine within it 
or exclude from it the kingdom of God. It cannot 
be circumscribed or limited in such a way. It does 
not submit to such measurements. You can no 
more imprison the kingdom of God in geographical 
boundaries than you can weigh a sunbeam. Con- 
sider carefully Luke 17: 20, 21: ‘And being asked 
by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God cometh, 
he answered and said, The kingdom of God cometh 
not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo, 
here! or, There! for lo, the kingdom of God is within 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 65 


you.” Nothing is more clearly affirmed in these 
statements than that it is impossible to locate or 
to localize the kingdom of God. We have heard of 
“geographical Godliness,” but only as a pagan su- 
perstition. (Cf. 1 Kings 20: 23, 28.) 

An earthly kingdom is an organization. The 
kingdom of heaven is not. 

We used to say that Germany was the strongest 
kingdom on earth. We referred to the completeness 
and force of the organized government which con- 
stituted that kingdom. The kingdom of God is 
power but not physical force. It is life which may 
manifest itself in various organizations, but it is not 
itself an organization. It is not even an organism. 
There is no specific visible system of any kind that 
we can put our finger on and say, “this is the king- 
dom of God.” 

On an Easter morning once I heard an eloquent 
priest preach on the relation of the Catholic church 
to Christ. The burden of his discourse was that the 
Catholic church is the body of Christ, and that for 
one to have fellowship with Christ he must come 
in contact with his body, the Catholic church. His 
assumption was that the grace of salvation is lim- 
ited to a visible organization composed of men and 
controlled by them. But a church, or denomina- 
tion, that identifies itself with the kingdom of God 
is an apostate church. That it does this is proof of 
its apostasy. For in doing it it dismisses the Spirit 
of God and bows to the visible and the human. 

Dr. L. P. Jacks of Oxford has vividly described 
the constant gravitation in general toward idolatry. 
He says: 


66 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


“A civilization not based upon wealth; a democ- 
racy whose ideal is not the maximum of legisla- 
tion but the minimum. Such is the dream. Can it 
be realized? In answer let me remind the reader of 
Plato’s conception of the invisible state. The true 
state, according to Plato, is not only invisible now, 
but remains invisible forever. Its nature is to be 
invisible; it can never be otherwise. ‘I do not be- 
lieve it is to be found anywhere on earth,’ says 
Glaucon at the end of the ninth book of the Repub- 
lic. ‘Ah, well,’ answers Socrates, ‘the pattern of 
it is perhaps laid up in heaven for him who wishes 
to behold it. . . . And the question of its pres- 
ent or future existence on earth is quite unimpor- 
tant.’ 

“But many people are not content with that. 
They insist on turning the invisible state into a vis- 
ible one. They appear to think that so long as the 
state is invisible it is not real and does not work. It 
never occurs to them that in trying to make it vis- 
ible they may do violence to its nature; so that 
it becomes not more real but less real, and gets 
into a condition where it works badly or doesn’t 
work at all. And yet I believe that such is often 
the case. 

“We see exactly the same process at work in the 
history of religion. The mind of man has always 
kicked against the notion that the deity is invisible. 
The notion has been that a real deity, an effective 
deity, must be a deity that can be seen; that an in- 
visible deity, if I may say so, is no good. Hence in 
the history of religions we can trace a process 
of turning the invisible deity into the visible one, 
and the process ends in setting up some wooden idol 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 67 


of the god, a thing one can see and feel and handle 
—a thing of which one can say ‘there it is. Then 
it is discovered that by making the god visible men 
have done violence to his nature. The visible 
wooden idol won’t work. It can neither save nor 
help nor deliver. By becoming visible it has lost 
the attributes of God—and when that is discovered 
the idol is smashed.” 

History reveals how powerful and how successful 
was the tendency to identify the kingdom of God 
with the visible thing called the Holy Catholic 
Church. It is an idol that the Reformation began 
to “smash.” 

By what has been said I would not imply that 
the kingdom of God has no visible manifestations 
and creates no organization. It does. As light man- 
ifests itself, so does the kingdom of God. As life 
builds for itself organisms by means of which it 
comes in contact with the visible world, so does the 
kingdom. Life is not to be identified with its mani- 
festations; it is much more than any of them and all 
of them. But life, potent life, seeks to manifest 
itself in visible forms, in some definite tangible or- 
ganism or organization. It creates a “body” for it- 
self. In the very nature of the case this body be- 
ing more or less human is more or less imperfect. 
I am speaking of the actual body, not the revealed 
ideal for it in the New Testament. 

The question of the relation of the kingdom to 
the church or the churches becomes, therefore, an 
important one. “It is most vital. As suggested 
above, the identification of the former with the lat- 
ter is one of the woes of the world. But the truer 
churches are to the ideals of life and organization 


68 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


revealed in the New Testament the more truly do 
they represent the spirit of the kingdom. But in 
New ‘Testament times even members of local 
churches did not constitute all the saved. The very 
idea would be absurd. 

Now we do find the word church used a few times 
in the New Testament as co-extensive with the king- 
dom. Hebrews 12: 23 is an indisputable case. Mat- 
thew 16: 18 is quite certainly another, and there 
are, it may be, several in Ephesians and Colossians. 
This is a very natural enlargement of the meaning 
of the word when it is remembered that the Greek 
word translated church, ekklesia, means a calling 
out or persons called out. All saved people or be- 
lievers are called out from the world. They are a 
people separate and apart. Those that have not 
yet “passed on” are in the world but not of it. 
Their “citizenship is in heaven.” (Phil. 3: 20.) 

It should be noted that this unusual meaning of 
the word church in the New Testament is wholly 
different and distinct from its common meaning, a 
local, tangible, visible body. It should not, there- 
fore, lower our idea of the kingdom to what is 
earthly, but, on the contrary, heighten our idea of 
the church to what is heavenly. I repeat, the idea 
that all local churches, thought of as one universal 
church, as Augustine taught (City of God, 13: 12), 
and exactly co-extensive and identical with the king- 
dom of God on earth, or all the saved on earth, is 
foreign to the New Testament and is fatal to the 
conception of the kingdom of God as a spiritual 
institution or movement. One needs to take but a 
passing glance at church history to see that this 
doctrine has been the curse of the Christian cen- 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 69 


turies. The greatest calamity that has ever hap- 
pened to historical Christianity was the union of 
church and state under Constantine, the taking over 
by the state of those spiritual groups of men and 
women scattered about in the Roman Empire and 
causing them to become a part of the machinery of 
the government. In time the notion would nat- 
urally prevail and did prevail that the kingdom of 
God and the Roman government were one and the 
same. Hence there arose what history knows as 
the Holy Roman Empire. It is easy to trace many 
of the evils which to-day afflict even evangelical 
Christianity to this unholy alliance. It seems clear 
to me that this is the “falling away” and the “man of 
sin,” the “son of perdition, he that opposeth and 
exalteth himself against all that is called God or 
that is worshiped; so that he sitteth in the temple 
of God, setting himself forth as God,” which Paul 
predicted would come and continue until Christ 
returns. (2 Thess. 2: 3-12.) He saw “the mystery 
of lawlessness” already at work. 

And yet, notwithstanding all the pure light that 
shines from the New Testament, and all the vivid 
lessons of church history, there are some outstand- 
ing leaders of the various denominations now who 
advocate “national” or “indigenous” churches. They 
would lead us again into the ditch. They would 
turn the world back again to the dark ages. But 
they shall not succeed. Every leader of Protestant- 
ism that heads toward Rome will lose his following. 

Some are saved who have no connection with 
any church at all, and some that are in the churches 
are not believers at all. Some are in the kingdom 
that are not in a church, and some are in a church 


70 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


that are not in the kingdom. But all that are 
saved are in the kingdom, and all that are in the 
kingdom are saved. These two circles are identical. 
This is a common truth to Baptist people and others 
who emphasize the difference between the outward 
and the inward, the formal and the spiritual; but 
to many it is a strange doctrine. To Catholics and 
to some Protestants Christianity is the same as 
“churchanity.” And to all such ecclesiastical succes- 
sion from Christ and the apostles is essential. 

When we attempt to set forth the relation be- 
tween the kingdom of God and the churches we 
must consider that the word church has been pros- 
tituted to worldly if not vile uses. Some institutions 
that take upon themselves the name of the church 
are even opposed in spirit and purpose to all that 
the New Testament churches stood for. For ex- 
ample, a group of Christian Scientists calls itself 
a church. In Kansas City, Missouri, there is an 
institution that calls itself “the church of this world.” 
No word has been abused so much as the word 
church, unless it be the word Christian, and for the 
same reason, as one can readily see. 

I think of the kingdom of God as a mountain 
range lifting itself high above the valley below which 
represents the world. God’s people are called to the 
higher life. They are lifted out of the lowland. 
They live on the heights. This is true of every 
saved person. It is not true of the man of the 
world. He lives in the shadows and miasmas of the 
plane, because his idols are there. (Cf. Gal. 5: 19- 
24.) Now in every mountain range there are certain 
towering peaks that give shape to the general eleva- 
tion. These are like the churches in relation to the 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 71 


kingdom of God. I mean New Testament churches 
and such as partake more or less of their character. 
The more like New Testament churches they are in 
doctrine and life, the higher rise their summits and 
the greater is their power to lift up the entire mass. 

When men are saved they become partakers of 
the love of God and look upon the world with the 
compassion of Christ and feel the need of associa- 
tion with others, who have had the same experience 
that they have had and who are moved with the 
same love of souls that moves them, they will im- 
mediately unite themselves in some kind of organi- 
zation. The kingdom of God is life, and life every- 
where produces organisms and manifests itself there- 
in. That spirituality is small that does not organize 
itself for self-propagation. The organism must suit 
the life, must in fact be created by it. Otherwise the 
life is not helped but hindered by it. 

It is easy to see how blighting to the kingdom of 
God is any worldly organization that imposes itself, 
or is imposed by ambitious ecclesiastics, upon the 
kingdom of God. In so far as it succeeds it sup- 
presses the kingdom. Imagine the young fruit on 
the apple stem inside a bottle where it must grow 
confined and cramped into an unnatural shape if 
it grows at all. It is a poor quality of apple that 
will be thus produced. Through the Christian cen- 
turies the state church and other organizations 
more or less pagan or worldly have compressed, 
crippled, dwarfed and deformed the kingdom of God. 
But in spite of them all it still lives, and will in time 
break through all imprisonments. 

This, as I see it, is the relation of the kingdom to 
the church or the churches. If they are independent 


72 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


eroups of spiritual men and women, voluntarily 
associated, free from all worldly entanglements, with 
a simple and flexible government and organization, 
adaptable to all climates and conditions of society, 
like New Testament churches, and consonant with 
the spiritual nature of the kingdom, they manifest 
the kingdom and extend it, though they are not co- 
extensive with it. In so far as churches lack these 
qualifications they hinder the progress of the king- 
dom and are no part of it. 

In the organization of a church the so-called “law 
of parsimony” should operate. That is, the organi- 
zation should contain only that which contributes 
to the extension of the kingdom. When I was a 
boy on the farm we had this rule for buying ma- 
chinery: Get the simplest kind that will do the work. 
Any part that is not needed is a burden. A local 
church is a machine to do the work of bringing in 
the kingdom. The nature of the kingdom deter- 
mines the nature of the church. Since Christ is 
king in his kingdom the church is not an hierarchy. 
It has no legislative function. Since in the kingdom 
all Christians are equal, the church is a democracy, 
or, stated in another way, Christ only is its Lord. 
Anything in the organization of a church that does 
not contribute to these ends or obscures them is a 
nuisance. Again, the kingdom of God is essentially 
spiritual. Anything in the character of its organi- 
zation that does not contribute to a spiritual re- 
sult is a human impertinence. 

In the New Testament, therefore, as in an ideal 
home, the visible features or marks of organization, 
that is, the organization itself, are reduced to a 
minimum. By organization I do not mean, and 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 73 


have not meant, the machinery that a local church 
may create and use for the prosecution of its work 
as the Bible school and young people’s society, but 
what is regarded as essential to the existence of a 
church or a denomination, as officers, ordinances, 
ministerial orders and denominational government. 

One element in the strength of Methodism is this 
of which we speak. In harmony with the decisive 
spiritual experience of its great founder it strives 
to make the local organization simple in form and 
subordinate to the spiritual nature of the kingdom, 
and accordingly to a great degree flexible and ad- 
justable thereto. 

The contrast between the kingdom of God and 
the kingdom of the world, we may recall, was 
stressed by Jesus himself. To Pilate’s question, ‘Art 
thou a king?” he answered in the affirmative. But, 
not wishing Pilate to misunderstand him or in ig- 
norance condemn him, he explained: “My kingdom 
is not of this world.” (John 18: 36, 37.) The point 
of contrast Jesus describes in two ways, negatively 
and positively. “If my kingdom were of this world,” 
he says, “then would my servants fight, that I should 
not be delivered to the Jews.” That is, force of arms 
does not belong to the kingdom of God. Jesus con- 
tinues: “To this end have I been born, and to this 
end came I into the world, that I should bear wit- 
ness to the truth.” That is, the definitive quality of 
the kingdom of God is something moral, not some- 
thing material. Jesus is talking, let us remember, 
to a pagan and uses the word best suited to convey 
to his mind the essential principle of his kingdom. 
“The truth” was a better verbal vehicle than gospel, 
or kingdom of heaven, to carry his thought to the 


74 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


mind of this Gentile skeptic; and Pilate did under- 
stand it sufficiently to sneer. 

The attitude of Pilate may be regarded as typi- 
cal of that of unbelief in general. It sees nothing in 
the spiritual kingdom. It is the world’s attitude. 
What it can see and touch and use for its own ad- 
vantage it prizes. What it cannot thus appropriate 
it despises. 

It is said that Pompey, when he conquered the 
Jews and visited Jerusalem, demanded that he see 
the Holy of Holies of the temple, and when this 
was refused him went in by force; and that when 
he came out he was full of contempt for it all, say- 
ing it was nothing but empty space. We could not 
expect that it would have had any other effect upon 
his pagan mind. He had no soul with which to ap- 
preciate the spiritual worship that was befitting 
the true and living God that dwelt there. 

The world has no soul with which to appreciate 
the realities of the kingdom of God. For this very 
reason we should prize them the more. 

“For ye are not come into a mount that might 
be touched, and that burneth with fire, and unto 
blackness, and darkness, and a tempest, and the 
sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which 
voice they that heard entreated that no word more 
should be spoken unto them; for they could not en- 
dure that which was enjoined. If even a beast touch 
the mountain, it should be stoned; and so fearful 
was the appearance, that Moses said, I exceedingly 
fear and quake: but ye are come unto Mount Zion, 
and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Je- 
rusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels, to the 
general assembly and church of the first-born who 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 75 


are enrolled in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, 
and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to 
Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the 
blood of sprinking that speaketh better than that 
of Abel.” (Heb. 12: 18-24.) 

“Ve also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual 
house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual 
sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” 
(1 Pet. 2: 5.) 

“But ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a 
holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that 
ye should show forth the excellencies of him who 
called you out of darkness into his marvelous light; 
who in time past were no people but now are the 
people of God.” (1 Pet. 2: 9, 10.) 

In these quotations the writers are addressing 
Jewish Christians, not as members of a local church 
but as citizens of the kingdom of God. Their re- 
lation to the nation of Israel is thought of as noth- 
ing. Being members of God’s spiritual kingdom is 
the one thing to be valued. 

We may well be on our guard in quoting Profes- 
sor Harnack, but the following splendid utterance 
of his should be received gladly: “Certainly the 
task of the historian is difficult and responsible 
when he has to separate kernel from shell, what is 
inherited from what is original, in the preaching of 
Jesus about the kingdom of God. How far dare 
we go? We must not take from this preaching its 
native quality and color, converting it into a blood- 
less moral system. But, on the other hand, we must 
not lose its peculiar power by acting as those do who 
resolve the whole into a complex of contemporary 
fancies. The way in which Jesus himself distin- 


76 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


guished among the ideas of his contemporaries, 
casting none aside in which there was a spark of 
ethical power; and adopting none by which the 
ambitious expectations of his fellow-countrymen 
would have been strengthened, proves that he spoke 
and preached out of a deeper knowledge than theirs. 
But we possess much more striking proofs. He who 
desires to know what the kingdom of God and the 
coming of this kingdom mean in the preaching of 
Jesus must read and ponder his parables. There it 
will dawn upon him what Jesus is thinking about. 
The kingdom comes when it comes to the individual, 
making entry to the soul which embraces it. The 
kingdom is the reign of God, no doubt; but it is 
God himself with his power. Everything dramatic, 
in the external and historical sense, here disappears, 
and the whole external hope of a future upon earth 
sinks out of sight. Take any parable you please— 
that of the Sower, or that of the Pearl of Great 
Price, or that of the Treasure hidden in the Field— 
and you perceive that the Word of God, or rather 
God himself, is the kingdom; and what you are 
reading about is not angels or devils, thrones or prin- 
cipalities, but God and the soul, the soul and its 
God.” (Hssence of: Christianity, Third Lecture. 
Quoted by Stalker, Ethic of Jesus, p. 26.) I would 
criticize adversely only a few points in this admir- 
able statement. 


THE SPIRITUAL NATURE OF 
THE KINGDOM (Continued) 


Glorious things of thee are spoken 
Zion, city of our God: 

He, whose word cannot be broken, 
Formed thee for his own abode; 
On the Rock of Ages founded, 

- What can shake thy sure repose? 

With salvation’s wall surrounded, 
Thou may’st smile at all thy foes. 


See, the streams of living waters, 
Springing from eternal love, 

Well supply thy sons and daughters, 
And all fear of want remove; 

Who can faint, while such a river 
Ever flows their thirst to assuage? 
Grace which, like the Lord, the Giver, 

Never fails from age to age. 


CHAPTER IV 


iit oP iURT IAL oo NALURE OOF 
THE KINGDOM — Continued 


In the previous chapter we were concerned with 
establishing the fact of the spirituality of the king- 
dom. Now we wish to make this fact plain, in- 
evitable and attractive; to show clearly that the 
essential qualities of the kingdom are spiritual qual- 
ities. 

By spirituality I mean not ideality, but reality, 
reality that is invisible and moral, and more; I mean 
divine energy or quality or presence. I mean the 
realization of the purpose of God in the will and 
character of men. I want to show that the Bible re- 
quires this conception of the kingdom of God. In 
finding illustrations of it therein we find also further 
proof of it. We are not speculating nor theorizing 
nor guessing; we are interpreting the Holy Scrip- 
tures and understanding the kingdom of God. 

The kingdom of God is an invisible kingdom. 

“And being asked by the Pharisees, when the 
kingdom of God cometh, he answered them and 
said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observa- 
tion: neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, There! for 
lo, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17: 
20, 21.) 

Whether the expression, “‘within you,” is the pref- 
erable rendering of the Greek, which seems to the 


[79] 


80 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


writer to be the case, or whether the marginal read- 
ing, “in the midst of you” should be adopted, the 
force of the language of Jesus as bearing on the point 
before us is plain. There are no visible marks of 
the kingdom of God. It cannot be located nor lo- 
calized. Of course, Jesus does not mean to say that 
the kingdom of God is in the Pharisees or that they 
are in it. The expression, “within you,” is to be 
taken as having a general or universal sense. It 
means that the kingdom of God is an “affair of the 
heart.” It has to do with thought and feeling and 
purpose and not with the physical man. It has to 
do with the “internal man,” not the ‘external man.” 
It is not to the point, which Jesus was making, to 
affirm that the kingdom was then present with them, 
which is of course implied in what he says, but to 
affirm rather that it cannot be seen. The transla- 
tion, “‘within you,” is in stronger contrast with ‘“ob- 
servation” than “in the midst of you” would be. 
But in either case the invisible character of the 
kingdom is emphasized. 

Writers and speakers used to distinguish often be- 
_ tween the “church visible’ and the “church invis- 
ible.” They had in mind the great truth that we are 
here dealing with. It is not difficult to apprehend 
it, but it is a great achievement to appreciate it. It 
is easy to see this diamond sparkling upon the 
ground. But most men pass on without any knowl- 
edge of its value. Could they trade it for gold they 
would eagerly pick it up. If it had commercial 
value they would even dig for it. But “gain is not 
godliness.” (Cf. 1 Tim. 6: 5.) 

When we consider the holy Trinity, to whose 
character the kingdom must conform and for the 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 81 


revelation and glory of whom it exists, we are the 
more able to appreciate the spiritual nature of tt. 

God’s nature is essentially spiritual. 

“God is spirit.” (Jno. 4: 24.) ‘Man shall not see 
me and live,” he said to Moses. (Ex. 33: 20.) It 
is not a moral inability only that prevents man from 
seeing God but a natural inability also. God does 
not exist in a physical form which only can be dis- 
cerned by the eyes. “Blessed are the pure in heart: 
for they shall see God,” said Jesus. (Matt. 5: 8.) 
It is the spirit of man only, his understanding, his 
love, to which God can reveal himself directly and 
essentially. 

We understand clearly, when we consider this 
fact, why the Bible burns in indignation against 
idolatry. It is a caricature of God’s spiritual nature. 
It is a travesty on true worship. The idea that it 
is a step in the evolution of the race is a modern in- 
vention, and is not in the Bible. There it is always 
a sin; like the sin of profanity or worse. It is not 
the first rays or dawning of the morning; it is the 
pitch darkness of midnight. It points not to the 
evolution but to the fall of man. (Cf. Rom. 1: 21- 
23.) 

I am looking at a great painting, the Ascension. 
It consists of three parts. Jesus is the center of 
the scene. He is rising in a glory of light, encircled 
with angelic figures, his countenance triumphant 
and peaceful and his hands outstretched to bless the 
disciples below. They are gazing upward in wonder- 
ment and worship. These two parts of the picture 
are perfect. They satisfy a devout imagination. But 
above is an attempted representation of the Father. 


82 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


It is a failure. No artist can paint a spirit. It is as 
impossible as it is to visualize a fourth dimension. 

“God is spirit; and they that worship him, must 
worship him in spirit and truth.” (John 4: 24.) 
He cannot be worshiped in any other way. 

Not only does idolatry dishonor God but its in- 
evitable reaction is to dull and deaden the worshiper. 
One becomes like that which he worships. (Cf. Ps. 
135: 18.) As men understand God and think of him 
properly they become enlightened and intellectually 
strong. The spiritual conception of God is the 
eround of progress. That is, the first and second 
commandments are fundamental in all human hap- 
piness, enlightenment and achievement. History 
is “establishing the works of the hands” of Moses. 
(Cf, Ps. 90:17.) 

The nature of Christ, the king of the kingdom of 
God, is spiritual. It is essentially spiritual. His 
glory is a spiritual glory. 

Christ is presented to us in three states, preincar- 
nate, incarnate and present, in all of which his glory 
is a spiritual glory. As to the first this statement 1s 
necessarily true and needs no proof. 

We need only to think for a moment of Christ 
‘Gn the days of his flesh” to see that he puts empha- 
sis always, in both precept and example, upon the 
spiritual. He regarded the material, the temporal, 
as but a means to an end. In fact, we may say that 
his resigning his pristine glory for a time was to 
teach us the pre-eminence of spiritual values. 

I am sure no man ever touched the chords of 
human relationships with more gentleness than did 
this ideal man. It is certain that the ties of human 
affection never bound a man’s heart tighter to the 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 83 


loved ones of his family than they did the heart of 
this perfect son and brother. And yet we hear him 
crying: “Who is my mother, and my brothers? And 
looking round on those who sat about him, he says, 
Behold, my mother, and my brothers! For whoever 
does the will of God, he is my brother, and sister 
and mother.” (Mark 3: 33-35.) No man, we may 
believe, saw the beauties of nature and of life in 
this world better than he; and yet in the prime of 
manhood, at thirty-three years of age, when con- 
scious of power to bring the world to his feet, he 
turned from its glory and voluntarily surrendered 
his life. He knew it has no lasting value; that its 
glory is but a “passing show.” So far as I can dis- 
cover he did not rely upon a single worldly force 
to extend his kingdom. He never at any time ap- 
pealed to an earthly or selfish motive. He “staked 
it all” upon the spiritual, spiritual ideals and spirit- 
ual forces. He believed in them. They were real to 
him. He looked at the soul of man not at his body. 
He was a Jew but he knew neither race nor color. 
He would “break down the middle wall of partition” 
between Jew and Gentile. There is not the least 
doubt that this is the correct interpretation of the 
mind of Christ on this subject, radical and revolu- 
tionary though it is. All the wars and social mis- 
eries of our poor world have come because it has 
not been willing to acknowledge the truth and jus- 
tice of this principle. It will never find peace until 
it does. It is useless and vain to say that the Golden 
Rule won’t work. There is nothing that will work 
but the Golden Rule. ? 

Mr. Roger W. Babson speaks well and pointedly 
when he says: “Jesus was not interested in prop- 


84 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


erty, per se. There is no question but that Jesus 
had no interest in property. These things which 
look so important to us—houses, roads, taxation, 
buildings, fields, crops, foreign trade, ships,—it 1s 
very evident were insignificant to Jesus. When any 
of Jesus’ disciples came to him to settle some prop- 
erty question, he pushed them aside, and said he 
was too busy to consider it. I am sure that if Jesus 
were here to-day he would tell us all that we are 
idiots for striving so to accumulate things—build- 
ing ourselves bigger houses, getting bigger bank ac- 
counts and more automobiles.” 

In this age when science is so much praised we 
ought to consider that Jesus did not say a word 
about the steam engine or electricity. He did not 
even tell us that the world is round. I believe he 
knew about all these things and knew also that they 
would not heal the world’s hurt nor keep it free from 
pain and turmoil. By means of science the hell of 
war is made still hotter. But Jesus did know and 
did tell the world what would save it, if only it 
would hear and heed. 

In his present exalted state Jesus is preeminently 
spiritual. Even his resurrection body is, according 
to Paul, a spiritual body. (1 Cor. 15: 44.) He is now 
invisible. He is an “anchor of the soul, a hope sure 
and steadfast and entering into that which is within 
the veil.” (Heb. 6: 19.) As the anchor, when it 
holds the ship in safety passes out of sight, so Jesus, 
to save and keep the soul, has passed out of view 
into the holy place of the heavenly tabernacle. 
There he intercedes as a spiritual priest and reigns 
as a spiritual king. And such spiritual offices and 
functions are possible only in a spiritual kingdom. 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 85 


The vital relation of men to such a priest and king 
creates a spiritual kingdom. 

The character of the Holy Spirit makes the king- 
dom of God a spiritual kingdom. 

This is so apparent as hardly to need affirming. 
The day of Pentecost is one of the greatest of all 
days. It is an interpretation of Christianity. The 
Holy Spirit gives character to this age. “It shall be 
in the last days (last age of the world, this age in 
which we are now living, not the end of this age but 
from Pentecost on to the end) saith God, I will pour 
forth of my Spirit upon all flesh.’ (Acts 2: 17.) 
“Ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is 
come upon you,” Jesus said. (Acts 1: 8.) Power for 
what? To bring in the kingdom. The power of the 
kingdom of God is a spiritual power. The one qual- 
ity that characterizes it is spirituality. A kingdom 
that is created by spiritual power must be a spiritual 
kingdom. 

When we consider the kind of people that consti- 
tute the subjects or citizens of the kingdom of God 
its spiritual nature becomes obvious. 

The author of the Hebrews says that we believers, 
we saved people, we Christians, ‘are not come to a 
mount that might be touched, and that burned with 
fire,” that is, Mt. Sinai, but that we “are come unto 
Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, 
the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts 
of angels, to the general assembly and church of the 
first-born (ones) who are enrolled in heaven.” (Heb. 
12: 18-23.) That is, the company of people to 
whom we belong have their names “enrolled in hea- 
ven.” This is a poetical and beautiful expression 


86 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


for being saved. The mark of salvation is on them, 
or rather, in them. It characterizes them. 

Jesus said to Nicodemus: “Except one be born 
from above he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 
(John 3: 3.) Without this experience one cannot 
enter it, nor can he understand it. He may get 
into a visible church without being born again but 
not into the kingdom. 

We have had much trouble with some foreigners 
who come to our country. We may expect more. 
There is one cause for it. We cannot impart to 
them the spirit of the United States. They are in 
our country but not of it. They have not surren- 
dered their anarchistic ideas. They are not converted 
to our principles of government. They retain their 
old prejudices and animosities against law and order. 
They are a menace to our institutions and to our 
peace. It cannot be otherwise, if we let such people 
live among us. What a blessing it would be if when 
they enter we could convert them to our national 
views and ways; if we could regenerate them and 
baptize them in a political sense. But we cannot do 
this. All we can do is to look for a few external 
marks or belongings. We examine the immigrant’s 
pocketbook to see if he has a few dimes, or his eyes 
to see if he has a disease. Then we let him in or 
bar him out, as the case may be. That is as far as 
we, in our weakness, can go. We often send away 
the worthy and welcome the unworthy. 

But God does not bungle in any such fashion. 
Everyone who gets into his kingdom is born again ; 
he is a new creation. (Cf. 2 Cor. 5: 17; Gal. 6: 15.) 
He is given a nature that corresponds to the insti- 
tution or divine state into which he is initiated. He 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 87 


becomes a citizen of a spiritual kingdom and in 
the process is transformed into a spiritual man. Of 
the three adjectives, “carnal,” “natural” and “spir- 
itual,” Paul uses the last only as the proper descrip- 
tion of a Christian. (Cf. 1 Cor. 2: 14, 15; 3: 1.) 

It ought to be understood, though it is not always, 
that when Paul speaks of salvation in terms of jus- 
tification and adoption, he is not thinking of a for- 
mal or arbitrary salvation. (Cf. Rom. 3: 24; 5: 1, 
18; 8:15; 1 Cor. 6: 11; Gal. 4: 5; Eph. 1:5.) With 
justification or adoption there goes regeneration, 
just as with pardon there goes repentance. When 
God pardons sin he creates hatred for sin. When 
he forgives he also gives more grace, grace for right 
living. When the image of Christ is formed within 
reformation follows without. All this is beautifully 
illustrated in the parable of the Prodigal Son. Jus- 
tification is the legal term corresponding to the social 
term, forgiveness or pardon, and both presuppose a 
change of thought, of feeling and of will; that is, a 
revolution of life. Unrighteousness has no place in 
God’s kingdom. It is a kingdom of light and not 
of darkness. (Cf. 1 Cor. 6: 9-11.) 

God’s people love righteousness. Their zeal is a 
zeal for good works. (Titus 2: 14.) “A scepter of 
rectitude is the scepter” of Christ’s kingdom. (Heb. 
1: 8.) The subjects of his kingdom have the spirit 
of their king. He loves righteousness and hates in- 
iquity and so do they. (Cf. Heb. 1: 9.) No Phari- 
see nor Sadducee, ancient or modern, is in the king- 
dom. (Cf. Matt. 5: 20.) 

God’s people are an unworldly people. They have 
the spirit of the patriarchs, who “confessed that 
they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” 


88 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


(Heb. 11: 13.) “They desire a better country, that 
is a heavenly.” (Heb. 11: 16.) “Our citizenship 
is in heaven.” (Phil. 2: 20.) God’s people are peo- 
ple of faith. (Cf. Gal. 3: 7, 26.) They believe in 
what they do not see. To them it is the unseen 
world especially that is real. They live in the future 
as well as in the present; and they have good reason 
to. They have an inspiring hope and a rational 
basis for it. Christians are all practical idealists. 
Like good sailors they have their eyes upon the stars. 
Like Moses they “endure as seeing him who is in- 
visible.” : (Heb. 11: 27.) 

All such qualities are spiritual qualties and be- 
long only to spiritual people. 

Not only must one be born of the spirit and have 
a spiritual nature in order to enter the kingdom of 
God but he will also, by breathing the atmosphere 
of the kingdom and engaging in its activities, grow 
into a higher degree and a more perfect state of 
spirituality. The kingdom exists for this purpose. 
It is God’s garden in which saints are grown. It is 
God’s city where he is building temples of Chris- 
tian character. It is God’s factory where he is pro- 
ducing holy men. Now spiritual men and holy men 
are one and the same. To be in God’s kingdom, 
therefore, is to be spiritually minded and to become 
more and more so. The spiritual man is in the king- 
dom and the kingdom is also in him. 

It is said that Plato put up over the door to his 
lecture hall a notice like this: No one should enter 
here who is not versed in geometry. Plato consid- 
ered geometry to be the best discipline to prepare 
the mind to pass from the material world to the 
ideal world. As one enters the kingdom he receives 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 89 


a spiritual nature. But God’s kingdom on earth is 
the best discipline for the kingdom that shall be. 
None will enter into it there who has not experi- 
enced it here. 

Once more. The Christian has a certain relation 
to Christ. The spiritual man and the idealist are 
not one and the same. The spiritual man is not 
simply a worshiper of God. He is a worshiper of 
God as he is revealed in Christ. Christ is the stand- 
ard, the test, of spirituality. Paul affirms boldly: 
“No one speaking in the Spirit of God says, Jesus is 
accursed; and no one can say, Jesus is Lord, but in 
the Holy Spirit.” (1 Cor. 12: 3.) That is, a man is 
to be judged as spiritual or not according to his at- 
titude to Christ. If he is against Christ he is not 
spiritual, nor is he fit for the kingdom, it matters 
not for what else he may qualify. He may be 
scientific, philosophic, idealistic, even religious, and 
still not be spiritual. It is said, for example, that 
the great Franklin was religious and the proof of- 
fered is that he had the following creed: “That 
there is one God who made all things; that he gov- 
erns the world by his providence; that he ought to 
be worshiped by adoration, prayer, and thanksgiv- 
ing; that the most acceptable service of God is doing 
good to man; that the soul is immortal, and that 
God will certainly reward virtue and punish vice, 
either here or hereafter.” Now it is true that one 
who believes these six propositions is a religious 
person. But it takes something more to make him 
Christian or spiritual, and that is, accepting Christ 
as his Lord. Those philosophers who heard Paul in 
Athens believed all these propositions, except pos- 
sibly the fourth one, and were in fact “very reli- 


90 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


gious” but with Jesus Christ, the resurrection and 
spirituality, of which we speak, most of them would 
have nothing to do. 

Sometimes we wonder whether certain people are 
Christians or not. We cannot tell absolutely and it 
is not our business to tell. We judge by appear- 
ances only. God knows. “Howbeit the firm foun- 
dation of God standeth, having this seal, the Lord 
knoweth them that are his: and let every one that 
nameth the name of the Lord depart from unright- 
eousness.” (2 Tim. 2: 19.) Let that suffice while 
we wait for “the revealing of the sons of God.” (Cf. 
Rom. 8: 19.) 

The method by which the kingdom is propagated 
shows that it is a spiritual institution. 

Some years ago when a beloved pastor was con- 
ducting a revival meeting with me in Canon City, 
Colorado, we took a walk together in the Royal 
Gorge. We talked about the visible wonders of na- 
ture and of the invisible wonders of the kingdom. 
As we held different views upon the subject of the 
millennium the conversation began to run in this 
fashion: 

“Your idea of the millennium is that Christ in 
personal and visible presence will rule the world, 
having a central city or seat of government and from 
thence enforcing his will completely throughout the 
world, is it not?” 

Vea?! 

“Your belief is that Christ will then not use the 
moral suasion method in establishing his kingdom, 
as he is doing now and has been doing for nineteen 
centuries, but will do it by force of some kind?” 

RY easing 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 91 


“But when Christ was on earth he refused to make 
use of force. Did he not tell Peter to sheathe his 
sword? (John 18: 11.) Did he not say to Pilate 
that his kingdom was not of this world (John 18: 
36), meaning thereby that the element of physical 
power was foreign to its nature?” 

ov esi) 

“Jesus was then defining the nature of his king- 
dom and said that force did not belong to it. So it 
never will belong to it. The essential quality of the 
kingdom of God on earth then is the essential quality 
of it now and ever shall be. Do you not see that 
your idea of the millennium is impossible? That 
you must either change your doctrine of the king- 
dom or your doctrine of the millennium?” 

He was silent for a time and in profound medita- 
tion, but he did not answer further. He could not. 
He is an honest thinker. 

There is only one place where persons do by 
force the will of God, and that is in hell. It is im- 
possible to build the kingdom of God by force. The 
method and the result do not harmonize. If I hold 
the Bible in one hand and a pistol in the other and 
say to my victim, “take your choice,” he may take 
the Bible, but it is certain that this process does not 
bring the kingdom to him nor him into the king- 
dom. If there is a sack of flour to be lifted up on 
the table I may sit in my chair and think, think in- 
tensely and powerfully, but it will have no effect 
upon the sack of flour. There it is on the floor and 
will continue to stay there until I take hold of it 
and apply the force of my muscle to it. I get a 
physical result by using physical power. I get a 
moral and spiritual result by using moral and spir- 


92 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


itual power. Christians are converts, not victims. 
They are believers, not cringing slaves. An autoc- 
racy can be extended by force. A democracy can- 
not. To try to do it is a violation of its very genius. 
Its members come into it or stay in it as a result of 
their own choice. The kingdom of God is in this 
respect a democracy. This is without question 
the lesson taught in the parable of the Tares. Jesus 
is there speaking, not against church discipline, but 
against persecution. “It is taking Christendom a 
long time to understand this. 

There is only one way by which to make Chris- 
tians and that is by ‘moral suasion.” 

Consider the motives to which the gospel appeals. 
They are reason, conscience, fear, love, and such 
like motives. There is not a low motive to which 
it appeals. It appeals to fear but not, however, as 
a supreme incentive. Fear is instinctive, rational 
and ethical. It has a place in the development of 
character. One who has not fear is dull, too dull to 
be saved. Those teachers and preachers that say 
the appeal to fear is unethical understand neither 
human nature nor the kingdom. Jesus Christ had 
something to say about hell and its torments and I 
think he knew what he was talking about. But fear 
alone will not save the soul. It is the “beginning 
of wisdom,” not the end of it. You cannot scare a 
man into the kingdom. 

The gospel is ‘the appeal to reason.” It has the 
“promise of the life which now is, and of that which 
is to come.” (1 Tim. 4: 8.) So our first duty is 
to teach men. The gospel is light. No one becomes 
a Christian without using his understanding, nor 
does he grow in grace without growing also in knowl- 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 93 


edge. From the moment in which one falls asleep 
to the moment in which he awakes he makes no 
progress in piety. 

If there be such a thing as a “nation being born in 
a day’ (Cf. Isa. 66: 8), in the sense of all its peo- 
ple being saved, that is, becoming Christian in 
twenty-four hours, it must be by an individual and 
voluntary “repentance toward God, and faith to- 
ward our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts 20: 21.) Men 
and women cannot be made Christian by govern- 
mental decree. Christians cannot be manufactured 
wholesale. Human souls do not come into God’s 
kingdom in this way, as they do not come into the 
world in this way. It is simply not God’s method. 
Souls cannot be dealt with in the mass. Wherever 
found they require individual and personal treat- 
ment. Those who talk about a future time when a 
whole nation will in twenty-four hours become, as 
by magic, Christian, ought to learn these three 
things: the real meaning of the passage in Isaiah 
referred to, the laws of human nature, and the laws 
of the kingdom. 

In this connection we may with profit consider 
the place of miracles in kingdom propaganda. As 
to present-day miracles I do not accept them. I be- 
lieve in prayer, and that God answers prayer objec- 
tively, but not in a miraculous way. I believe in re- 
generation and in God’s gracious dealings with the 
soul. I believe in his presence and providence and 
all his glorious goodness. I have no theory at all 
that would prevent him from working miracles now 
if he wants to. I often wish he would and at times 
wonder why he does not. But I never saw a miracle 
and the claims made for modern miracles do not 


94. A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


convince me at all. As to these I am like David 
Hume. It is easier for me to believe that all claim- 
ants to them are deceivers or deceived than to be- 
lieve that what they testify to did really happen. I 
leave it to the unscientific, the superstitious, the sen- 
sational, the neurotic and the religious fakirs, to 
prattle about present-day miracles. They have done 
so from Joseph Smith on down to the present. But I 
notice that all spiritual men, all men of mental bal- 
ance, who are bringing in the kingdom, who believe 
also in prayer and God’s vital presence, never claim 
to work miracles. Witness Carey, Judson, Spurgeon, 
Moody and all others. 

But when it comes to the miracles of the Bible, I 
believe them all. I have no trouble in accepting the 
account of Jonah as literal history. Since I believe 
in the resurrection of Christ and a personal God, all 
miracles of the Bible are credible and reasonable, in 
fact, natural. We must, however, consider that 
miracles, as properly defined and as I speak of them, 
are the exception not the rule. A miracle is God’s 
condescension to man’s need. It is worked to help 
his faith. If he does not need such help the miracle 
is not forthcoming. Where it is not needed it would 
do harm rather than good. Its ethical effect would 
be injurious. So Jesus at times refused to work 
miracles. So he said: “If they hear not Moses and 
the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one 
rise from the dead.” (Luke 16: 31.) Suppose a man 
should say, “I will believe it is wrong to lie if you 
will work a miracle.” Would a miracle really help 
him? Suppose a little infidel in school should say, 
“T will believe in the law of gravitation, if you will 
bring the moon so close to the earth that I can touch 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 95 


it.” Would that help him a bit? He needs another 
kind of treatment. The mental, moral and spiritual 
condition of those who dote on modern miracles is 
proof of what I argue. 

The kingdom’s appeal is to the conscience. It is 
said of Frederick W. Robertson, the eloquent 
preacher of Brighton, England, that, when young 
and in the throes of doubt, he wrote: “I doubt 
everything except the moral beauty of Jesus Christ. 
I cannot doubt that.” And this call of his con- 
Science saved him. Christ is the beauty of the 
world. He is the embodiment of all that is pure and 
good. All that love righteousness come to him. All 
others are repelled. The miracles of the Bible are 
fitted to and contribute to its moral message. 

We can readily see the importance of self-denial 
in Christ’s kingdom. The worldly-minded, the self- 
seeking, the ambitious, the greedy, the low and ma- 
terialistic do not belong to it and cannot get into it 
until all these desires are gotten rid of. When those, 
whom he had fed the day before, came to him in 
Capernaum, seeking another “free meal,” Jesus told 
them what they needed was not food for the body 
but for the soul; that they needed to receive him 
and his truth. But when they heard this they 
turned and went away. He disappointed them ut- 
terly. They had been hoping to make him their 
king, since, he could furnish them food without 
work, but now he “spoiled” all that. They had no 
time for anything spiritual. (Cf. John 6: 22-66.) It 
would be well for all to know that what some are 
wont to call the “social gospel” is not the gospel of 
grace and salvation but a gospel of sordid selfish- 
ness. I think Jesus, if he were here now, would say 


96 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


to such people, as he did then, what would drive 
them away. He cannot use worldlings. He really 
does not want them and will not have them as they 
are. They must be born again. It is better that 
they go away unless they repent. Christ does not 
count heads; he considers hearts. “The kingdom of 
God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness 
and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” (Rom. 14: 
Li) 

“The kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that 
was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: 
which, when it was filled, they drew up on the 
beach; and they sat down, and gathered the good 
into vessels, but the bad they cast away. So shall 
it be in the end of the world: the angels shall come 
forth, and sever the wicked from among the right- 
eous, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: 
there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of 
teeth.” (Matt. 18: 47-50.) Of course it is not meant 
that the wicked are really caught in the kingdom’s 
net but that they appear to be. But the time is 
coming when they will be made manifest and classi- 
fied properly, according to their moral nature. Je- 
sus had just before taught the same truth in the 
parable of the Tares. (Matt. 18: 24-30; 36-43.) 

Behold the mongrel mess we call Christendom! It 
is a mixture of the clean and the unclean. Behold 
that ecclesiastical misnomer that is called “the 
church”! No fisherman’s drag-net ever brought up 
creatures more “common or unclean” than we find 
in Christendom and “the church.” These are mere 
names that cover both the good and the bad. But. 
into God’s kingdom the pure only can come, and 
we know that he knows who are his own. 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 97 


In the contrast drawn in the Bible between the 
two covenants, the old covenant of works and the 
new covenant of grace, the spiritual character of the 
kingdom is revealed. 

“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I 
will make a new covenant with the house of Judah; 
not according to the covenant that I made with 
their fathers in the day that I took them by the 
hand to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt; 
for they continued not in my covenant, and I re- 
garded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the 
covenant that I will make with the house of Israel 
after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws 
into their mind, and on their heart also will I write 
them: and I will be to them a God, and they shall 
be to me a people.” (Heb. 8: 8-10.) 

The author of the Hebrews, quoting this predic- 
tion from Jeremiah, explains that the first covenant 
had to do with “carnal ordinances” and the second 
with the “conscience.” (Heb. 9: 10, 14.) The pur- 
pose of the old was ceremonially to cleanse the body, 
the purpose of the new was really to cleanse the 
soul. The first dealt with the physical, the second 
deals with the spiritual. By the first the temporal 
kingdom of Israel was built up; by the second the 
eternal kingdom of heaven is built up. 

This truth came to the disciples very slowly. 
Naturally it was very difficult for them to under- 
stand that Christ did not come to build again the 
national kingdom of Israel but to build the spiritual 
kingdom of God. Even after the resurrection, after 
Jesus had been with them for forty days, “speaking 
the things concerning the kingdom of God,” they 
with a persistent dullness ask, “Lord dost thou at 


98 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1: 
3, 6.) How earthly, how trivial, is that question! 
It is difficult for these men to appreciate the fact 
that the old covenant, together with the old order, 
is passing. 

In the unfolding and development of this truth in 
New Testament history, or in the realization of it 
by the apostles and other leaders, three decisive 
events are to be noted. 

First, the definite teaching of Jesus as to clean, 
and unclean meats. After Jesus had explained to 
the Pharisees and scribes that not what goes into a 
man’s mouth in the form of food, but what comes 
out of his heart in the form of evil thoughts, defiles 
him, the writer adds: “This he said, making all 
meats clean.” (Mk. 7: 19.) That is, Jesus, there and 
then, abolished the ceremonial law concerning clean 
and unclean foods. This would carry with it to its 
death the distinction also between Jew and Gentile 
and, consequently, the whole Mosaic ceremonial 
system. But the disciples did not as yet even sus- 
pect that a result so radical and far-reaching was 
possible. It was, however, soon to follow. 

Secondly, the case of Cornelius. Notwithstanding 
the teaching of Jesus just cited and his command to 
make disciples of all nations, the first Christians did 
not for a time get their bearings. They were under 
the delusion that the Gentiles must first become 
Jews before they could become Christians or even 
have the right to hear the gospel. (Cf. Acts 11: 19.) 
God’s word to Peter concerning Cornelius, and the 
coming of the Holy Spirit, while Peter was speak- 
ing, upon him and the company in his house, as they 
were, Gentiles and not Jews, cleared up the whole 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 99 


matter. Gentiles could be saved without becoming 
Jews. The conversion of Cornelius is one of the 
great events in the development of the gospel. Much 
is made of it. (Cf. Acts 10: 1-11: 18; 15: 7-11.) 

Thirdly, the Council in Jerusalem. This, too, was 
a momentous event. The very truth of the gospel 
was at stake. Some who were counted believers 
were talking in this fashion: “True, the Gentiles can 
believe without becoming Jews but after they be- 
lieve they must become Jews.” This was a vital is- 
sue. According to these Judaizers Christ is but a 
schoolmaster to bring us to Moses. Paul saw that 
the truth of the gospel was involved in this question. 
(Cf. Gal. 2: 5.) His view was the very opposite, 
namely, that Moses is a schoolmaster to bring us to 
Christ. (Cf. Gal. 3: 24.) So he went to Jerusalem 
to consider it with the apostles, the elders and the 
whole church there. Paul says that he “went up by 
revelation” to confer with them on the subject. (Gal. 
2: 2.) The account of the council is given in the 
fifteenth chapter of the Acts. Paul also in the sec- 
ond chapter of Galatians recounts some interesting 
facts concerning it. 

Keep in mind that the question before the council 
was definitely and specifically this: Are Gentiles be- 
levers to be required to keep the ceremonial law of 
Moses? The Judaizers raised the issue squarely 
when they said: “It is needful to circumcise them, 
and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.” (Acts 
hoe, Ol 15 1) 2b) 

Peter spoke first and referred to what God had 
taught them by the case of Cornelius, concluding 
that they should not “put a yoke on the neck of the 


100 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able 
to bear.” (Acts 15: 10.) 

Then Barnabas and Paul spoke, showing how 
God had by “signs and wonders” approved the gos- 
pel to the Gentiles. 

Then James, who, it seems, was the moderator of 
the meeting, spoke making an argument from a 
prophecy of Amos and formulating a statement of 
opinion which was unanimously adopted by the 
council. Let us study carefully what he says: 

“Simeon (that is, Peter) hath rehearsed how first 
God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a peo- 
ple for his name. And to this agree the words of 
the prophets; as it is written: 

“After these things I will return, and I will build 
again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; and 
I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it 
up: that the residue of men may seek after the 
Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is 
called, saith the Lord, who maketh these things 
known from of old. 

“Wherefore my judgment is, that we trouble not 
them that from among the Gentiles turn to God; 
but that we write unto them, that they abstain from 
the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and 
from blood. For Moses from generations of old 
hath in every city them that preach him, being read 
in the synagogues every Sabbath.” (Acts 15: 14-21.) 

In this summary of the speech of James there is 
no reference whatever to the second coming of 
Christ. He has no thought at all of that event. He 
is addressing himself to the question before them, 
namely the relation of the Gentile converts to the 
ceremonial law of Moses. He is interpreting a pro- 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 101 


phecy of the Old Testament and showing how it was 
in his day being fulfilled and not making prophecy. 
Any one who will look into the matter carefully can 
easily see that this is true. 

He quotes from Amos, chapter nine, verses eleven 
and twelve. To understand the tenses of the verbs 
in the quotation from Amos, we must put ourselves 
in the time of Amos, not in the time of James. 
James does not say that God says to him, “After 
these things I will return,” etc. James says that the 
prophets of old said that God then said that to 
them; and, singling out the prophecy of Amos, he 
quotes from him as representing the others also. 
James understands that what God said to Amos is 
in the time of the New Testament being fulfilled. 
“To this agree the words of the prophets,” he says, 
and then quotes the passage from Amos. The pro- 
phecy in Amos agrees to what? To the fact of the 
conversion of the Gentiles, illustrated in the case of 
Cornelius, as just related by Peter. Therefore the 
statement, “I will return and I will build again the 
tabernacle of David,” is a prediction by Amos, and 
in substance by others also, of the building up of 
God’s spiritual kingdom which was then going on 
by the coming of the Gentiles into it, as Peter and 
Paul and Barnabas have just been relating. Notice 
that Amos says specifically that God’s name will be 
“called upon the Gentiles”; that is, that they will 
become his people. How any interpreter can make 
out of this passage a prediction by James that, in a 
time future to him, and also to us, God will restore 
the temporal kingdom of Israel is amazing. Did he 
ever stop to ask what right he has to make “the 
tabernacle of David” mean the nation, or kingdom, 


102 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


of Israel? It is absurd. Nor can it mean the tem- 
ple, for the temple in a state of glory and power was 
then standing near by in the city. Besides there 
was no temple of David. “The tabernacle of David” 
in this connection signifies, not the kingdom of 
David, but the spiritual presence, or kingdom of 
God./(C£L Isa. 16:°5; Bz. 37:27; Heb. 3: 250s 
Rev. 13: 6; 15: 5; 21: 3.) The language of Amos 
is not “After these things I will return and,” but “In 
that day I will raise up,” etc. James is quoting 
freely. “I will return” is a beautiful poetic expres- 
sion descriptive of the Messianic hope that runs 
through the Old Testament. James, I think, pur- 
posed to convey the idea that such divine insight 
into the Christian age was shared by other prophets 
also. I repeat, James uses the word “return” to in- 
terpret the inspired thought of Amos with reference 
to what was future to Amos, and not to convey any 
thought of his own with reference to what was fu- 
ture to him, concerning which he says nothing. 
James is here an inspired interpreter of Scripture, 
not an inspired foreteller of future events. He is 
giving the thought of the prophets in a word often 
used by them. When applied to men it often meant 
to repent; when applied to God it usually, if not al- 
ways, meant to visit, to bless, to deliver, to show 
mercy, to meet men with forgiveness in response to 
their repentance, to save. (Cf. Gen. 18: 10; Deut. 
30: 8° Ps, 90:13; Isa. 35: 10363: 17; Jer. t2iiioe 
Mal. 3: 7.) 

What conclusion did the council come to? They 
agreed with James and sent letters to the believing 
Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia to this ef- 
fect: | 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 103 


“Forasmuch as we have heard that certain who 
went out from us have troubled you with words, 
subverting your souls; to whom we give no com- 
mandment; it seemed good unto us, having come 
to one accord, to choose out men and send them 
unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men 
that have hazarded their lives for the name of our 
Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas 
and Silas, who themselves also shall tell you the 
same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good 
to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no 
- greater burden than these necessary things: that ye 
abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from 
blood, and from fornication; from which if ye keep 
yourselves, it shall be well with you. Fare ye well.” 
(Acts 15: 24-29.) 

Notice that not a single one of the ceremonial re- 
quirements of the Old Testament is made binding 
on the Gentiles. Why? Because these require- 
ments do not belong to Christianity and the king- 
dom. They tell the Gentiles that their lives must be 
clean in matters of religion, food and sex, and with 
that they stop. Purity of worship, cleanness of sex 
relation, and sanitary food are spiritual and moral, 
not ceremonial, obligations. Notice that it is stated 
that the Holy Spirit approves the decision. (Acts 15: 
28.) 

This position was nothing new to Paul. He had 
been preaching it all the time. The apostles and 
the church in Jerusalem had understood it also since 
the conversion of Cornelius. Their communication 
says that those who went out from them and taught 
the contrary had no authority from them. But it 
was worth much to Paul and the cause of Christian- 


104 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


ity to have the doctrine passed upon formally and 
confirmed by the apostles and the whole church in 
Jerusalem. So Paul used the decrees or decision of 
the council to confirm his converts in the kind of 
gospel he had preached to them. (Cf. Acts 16: 4.) 

We may then with the best of reasons affirm that 
not a single ceremonial requirement or observance 
of the Old Testament is brought over into the New 
Testament. It would have been much better for 
Christianity, if this truth had been accepted by all. 
But the Judaizers would not accept it and kept up 
their fight on Paul, who became, rather than Peter, 
the great champion and defender of the gospel of 
salvation by faith without the works of the law. 
The center of the controversy was circumcision. 
Paul said it did not save. His opponents contended 
that it did. Paul said this view would destroy the 
gospel which is salvation by the free grace of God. 
Paul saved Christianity. But the Judaizers had a 
powerful influence and set in motion a movement 
that spread itself as a dark cloud over the kingdom 
of God, whose black shadows still darken the world. 
It seems that Paul saw it beginning to form. (Cf. 2 
Thess. 2: 3-12.) He called it the “mystery of in- 
iquity.” 

Roman Catholicism is a product or combination 
of three elements, Christian, Jewish and pagan. It 
has a reason for exalting Peter over Paul. It has a 
reason for its priesthood, its holy water, its holy 
days, its celibacy, its monasteries, its convents, its 
robes, its altars, its images, its sprinkling, its purga- 
tory, its sacraments, and its prayers for the dead. 
The second and third elements are always promi- 
nent. The first is usually submerged. Catholicism 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 105 


is Christianity minus spirituality, instead of and as 
a counterfeit for which it has superstition. 

This contest, which Paul waged against the Juda- 
izers and which the reformers later waged against 
Catholicism, is the contest of the ages. It is the 
contest of the spiritual against the carnal. It is the 
contest of truth against error. It is the contest of 
the kingdom of God against all foes, who would 
destroy it or obscure utterly its spirituality. Enoch, 
Noah and Abraham saved the situation in their 
days; Moses did in his day; John the Baptist did 
in his day; Paul did in his day; Martin Luther and 
others did in their day. But the Reformers did not 
make their victory complete. They that come out 
of Babylon should “come clean.” 

In our day also there are many spiritual influences 
and spiritual men and women whom God will use 
to save his kingdom from the “gates of hades.”? With 
great distinction the people called Baptists have 
stood and are now standing bravely in the breach. 
Repudiating every vestige of the Old Covenant, for 
example sprinkling, and all works of righteousness, 
as sufficient to save the soul, for example baptism; 
hating all forms of idolatry, even Bibliolatry, but 
affirming the infallibility of the Word of God; hold- 
ing tenaciously to the number and form of the New 
Testament ordinances but emphasizing their signifi- 
cance as symbols only of spiritual truth; accepting 
the Bible as the one standard of faith and conduct 
for both individuals and churches, but relying upon 
the Holy Spirit as an inward interpreter of its truth; 
believing that Jesus Christ is the rightful ruler of 
all men and that every knee should bow to him, but 
believing also that the souls of men are sacred and 


106 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


that they should have the right to decide for them- 
selves before God alone all matters of the con- 
science; impelled with a deep conviction that they 
should organize and build up churches according to 
the pattern shown them in the New Testament but 
moved also with charity for all who may differ from 
them in these matters and all matters; they are 
making their contribution to the spiritual kingdom 
of God, and thus to the progress of the world. 
With a love that does not fail they pronounce 
upon all believers Paul’s benediction: “Peace be 
upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” 


CHRIST NOW ON THE THRONE 


BEHOLD THE KING 


We have said that humanity always seeks a king. 

The Man of Galilee, at the close of his career, standing before 
Pilate, says with regal dignity and majesty: 

I am a King, and every true man is my subject. 

He is indeed a King—morally a King, intellectually a King, 
every inch a King. 

His kingdom is almost worldwide. 

The highest geniuses of earth bow before him. 

The greatest poets in the world praise him. 

The best of art is his, 

The noblest of architecture is his. 

The gems of literature are his. 

The loftiest music of the ages is his. 

Countless millions of human hearts are his. 

Ecce Homo. 

Ecce Deus! 

Ecce Rex!! 

—George R. Wendling. 


CHAPTER V 


CHRIST NOW ON THE THRONE 


Christ is now king. He is now on the throne. He 
is now reigning. The kingdom of God is not a future 
hope only; it is a present reality. 

Some do not have this view of the matter. They 
think the kingdom is yet future. They explain that 
Christ intended to set up his kingdom when he was 
on earth but, on account of the unbelief of the 
Jews and his rejection by them, he deferred the 
event to some future date. This age is the age of the 
church and not of the kingdom, they hold. Rev. 
W. E. Blackstone, Dr. A. C. Gaebelein and Dr 
James M. Gray advocate this view. 

Rev. Mr. Blackstone says: “He (Jesus) would 
have set up the kingdom (Matt. 23: 37-39), but 
they rejected and crucified him.” “Thus the king- 
dom came nigh unto the Jews, who spurned it, and 
while it waits God visits the ‘Gentiles, to take out of 
them a people for his name.’” (Jesus Is Coming, pp. 
87, 88.) 

Dr. Gaebelein, in a lecture that I heard, said: 
“Christ was in the bosom of the Father; then he 
was at his right hand; he will be on the throne.” He 
makes a distinction between Christ being at the 
right hand of the Father, where he is now and be- 
ing on the throne of the kingdom, which is yet fu- 
ture, he thinks. 


{109 ] 


110 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


Dr. James M. Gray, defining the “characteristic 
of this age,” says: “It is different from any age pre- 
ceding it, or to follow it. It is not the age of the 
kingdom, but the age of the church.” (Tract, The 
Present Age, etc.) 

The above three men are ministers of influence. 
Many follow them. They represent a large and in- 
creasing group of Bible students. They belong to 
the conservative wing of Bible interpreters of the 
present day, and are reverent and devout. I shrink 
from making an issue with them. But I must do 
it. I wonder that men of their learning and piety 
can stand for such a doctrine. If some enthusiastic 
young man, who has read only one class of Biblical 
literature but who has not yet learned how to un- 
derstand even the phraseology of the Bible, should, 
in want of experience and balance of judgment, take 
up with this theory, I would not be so surprised. 
But that such men as these should do it is strange 
indeed. 

We must, therefore, look into the question care- 
fully. Let us use all possible patience. Let us speak 
kindly and make fair arguments. 

First of all we should ask, what do we mean when 
we say that Christ is now reigning? 

If we mean that all persons do his will, then he 
is not reigning, for not all persons do his will. If we 
mean that all persons, or some persons on earth, do 
his will perfectly, then he is not reigning, for no one 
on earth attains to absolute perfection of character 
before God. If we mean the personal presence of 
Christ on earth and the enforcement of his will 
throughout the world from some central seat of 
government, as was done by King David over Is- 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 111 


rael and a limited portion of the earth’s surface, 
then he is not on the throne, for he is not on the 
earth in this sense nor is he enforcing his will upon 
men in this way. If this is what is meant by the 
kingdom of God on earth, then it must be a condi- 
tion yet to be realized. It does not exist now nor has 
it ever existed. This is the idea of the kingdom 
that the interpreters quoted have in mind. 

But if the kingdom of God means the reign of 
Christ, and if the reign of Christ means his en- 
_ thronement in human hearts, his being loved and 
obeyed, his principles and ideals being accepted; 
if it means that he is worshiped and given his right- 
ful place to a greater or less extent in the lives of 
men and women, then Christ is now on the throne 
and the kingdom of God is now in the earth. Now 
this, I affirm, is exactly what we mean by the king- 
dom of God; it is nothing more and nothing less 
than this. The will of Christ is the law of the king- 
dom. Where his will, which is God’s will, is done 
there is the kingdom. In the model prayer, which 
Jesus gave to the disciples, the two petitions, “thy 
kingdom come” and “thy will be done, as in heaven, 
so on earth,’ mean the same. (Matt. 6: 10.) The 
latter is an explanation of the former. “A log with 
Mark Hopkins on one end and an apt pupil on the 
other is an ideal college,” said Garfield. The saying 
became famous because there is much truth in it. 
God on his throne in heaven and one true wor- 
shiper on earth, his footstool, make the kingdom of 
God. God is always on his throne in heaven. There- 
fore, whenever and wherever we find men and wo- 
men on earth doing his will, then and there we find 
his kingdom. The more numerous such men and 


112 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


women are the greater is his kingdom. When Abel 
by faith offered an acceptable sacrifice to God then 
the kingdom of God began on earth. (Cf. Heb. 11: 
4.) The circle that includes all human beings on 
earth, who worship him in spirit and in truth, is 
the boundary of his kingdom now on earth. This 
proposition is so simple and so self-evident that we 
may say it must be so. Rebels are not in his king- 
dom; all subjects are. When Jesus said to his dis- 
ciples, in the Sermon on the Mount, “Seek ye first 
his kingdom,” he did not mean that they should 
seek to get into it, for they were already in it; but 
he meant that they should seek to extend it. He 
had been speaking of the worldly purposes of men 
and of the impossibility of their having two primary © 
motives in life and concluded: “Seek ye first his 
(our heavenly Father’s) kingdom, and his righteous- 
ness; and all these things (temporal needs) shall 
be added unto you.” (Matt. 6: 33.) “First,” 1s to 
be understood as pointing to importance and not to 
time. What is of primary importance, however, 
should come first in point of time also. If the king- 
dom is not in existence in our age this command of 
Jesus had no meaning for the disciples and can 
have none for us. Jesus commanded them and us 
to do what, in the very nature of the case, is im- 
possible. That is, Jesus told them and us to ex- 
tend his kingdom when he knew it did not exist 
and would not exist for eighteen hundred years 
and more. An institution that does not exist can 
neither be entered, nor extended. 

As we saw above concerning the two petitions in 
the model prayer, “Thy kingdom come, thy will 
be done,” that they are two expressions of the same 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 113 


thought, so here, “his kingdom and his righteous- 
ness’ are two expressions that in this connection 
mean the same. Where the kingdom is, there right- 
eousness 1s; and where righteousness is, there the 
kingdom is. To extend the kingdom is to increase 
righteousness in the earth. It would be very diffi- 
cult to tell what business a Christian has on earth 
if it is not the building of the kingdom of God or 
the creating of a reign of righteousness on earth. 
This is “not the age of an ingathering, but the 
age of an outgathering,” says one. But that is 
mere logomachy. Coming out of the world and 
coming into God’s kingdom are one and the same. 
Coming out of the world means simply turning 
away from its thoughts and ways. It means re- 
pentance and righteous living which is nothing else 
than entering the kingdom of God and obeying its 
laws, laws that are not written on tablets of stone 
but upon the heart. 

Having made these preliminary statements to 
explain what we mean when we say that Christ is 
now on the throne or that the kingdom is now on 
earth, in which there is also some proof of these 
propositions, we now take up the line of argument. 

There are many passages in the New Testament in 
which the kingdom of God 1s thought of as already 
mn existence and in which Christ is represented as 
possessing and exercising royal authority and power. 

“Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of 
Judzea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise 
men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, Where 
is he that is born king of the Jews?” (Matt. 2: 1-2.) 

In some way these men from a foreign country 
knew that a king was born. They knew it in the 


114 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


same way in which they knew that they should 
come to Jerusalem to inquire where he was; they 
knew it in the same way in which they knew that 
he was, or was to be king of the Jews. God told 
them. The chief priests and scribes also knew where 
this king was to be born, found it in prophecy and 
told the Wise Men, who went to Bethlehem, found 
him, worshiped him and gave gifts to him. (Cf. 
Matt. 2: 1-12.) 

Three times in Matthew we have the statement: 
“the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (3: 2; 4: 17; 
10: 7); once in Mark we have, “the kingdom of God 
is at hand” (1: 15); and twice in Luke we have, “the 
kingdom of God has come nigh.” (10: 9, 11.) In 
all these six cases the Greek verb is the same and 
the literal translation is, “the kingdom of heaven (or 
God) has come near.”’ Now does it mean near in the 
sense of a little distance off or in the sense of ac- 
tually present? I hold that the latter is the necessary 
meaning in all six cases. Some have thought that, 
when John calls upon the people to “repent, for the 
kingdom of heaven has come near,’ he must have 
meant only that it is approaching and is close at 
hand but not right at hand. If so what is the 
meaning when Jesus calls for repentance on the 
same ground and tells the apostles, and later the 
seventy, to make the same plea? Does Jesus call 
the Jews of his day to repentance on the ground 
that the kingdom of heaven is drawing near when 
it was eighteen centuries and more distant? This 
has been affirmed but it is absurd. Look at the sim- 
ple language. It is not, “repent that the kingdom 
may come.” It is not, “the kingdom has approached 
near and will arrive and manifest itself, if you will 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 115 


repent.” The idea is that the kingdom has already 
arrived and therefore you should repent. The verb 
is in the perfect tense; it designates completed ac- 
tion or state. In Mark the fuller statement is: 
“The time is fulfilled (perfect tense), and the king- 
dom of God is at hand.” That is, the old dispen- 
sation is ended and the new is now here. Mark’s 
record opens thus: “The beginning of the gospel 
of Jesus Christ, God’s Son.” Then follows the ac- 
count of John the Baptist. With the preaching of 
John the Baptist the kingdom began or received 
new impulse and power. The gospel is the gospel of 
the kingdom. Compare Matt. 4: 23; 11: 12; Luke 
4: 48; 16: 16. In some cases in the New Testament 
the verb translated, ‘is at hand” or “is come nigh,” 
or “has come near’ must mean, not approaching 
close but actually arriving. Consider Matt. 21: 34; 
Luke 18: 40; 21: 8; 24: 15; James 4: 8. All this 
is simple and natural. 

Jesus often spoke of the kingdom as a thing al- 
ready in existence and himself as then possessing 
the authority of a king. 

“From the days of John the Baptist until now the 
kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and: men of 
violence take it by force.” (Matt. 11: 12.) Whatever 
this passage means, and the meaning is not diffi- 
cult to find, it is clear that Jesus conceives of the 
kingdom as then in existence. In the parallel pas- 
sage in Luke he says, “and every man entereth vio- 
lently into it.” (Luke 16: 16.) This clinches the 
argument. 

“Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the 
kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 5: 3.) (Cf. Luke 6: 20.) 
They possess the kingdom or it possesses them. 


116 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


Where we see the “poor in spirit” there we see the 
kingdom. Jesus meant to attribute this quality to 
his disciples, considering them then as in the king- 
dom. 

“Tt is hard for a rich man to enter into the king- 
dom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is 
easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than 
for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” 
(Matt. 19: 23, 24.) Jesus was speaking of the king- 
dom as an institution into which one could then 
enter and not as something yet to be. The dis- 
ciples so understood him and understood also that 
entering the kingdom was the same as being saved; 
for they ask in great astonishment, ‘Who then can 
be saved?” (Matt. 19: 25.) Consider also Matt. 21: 
31; 23::138*) Mark 9:/473\102:152)127 13s Inova 

“There are some here of them that stand by, who 
shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the 
kingdom of God come with power.” (Mark 9: 1. Cf. 
Matt. 16: 28; Luke 9: 27.) The pomt of em- 
phasis is not that they will in the future see the 
kingdom, though Luke’s language may seem to give 
this sense, but upon the fact that it will come with 
power, that is, be signally manifested. So Matthew 
says, “till they see the Son of man coming in his 
kingdom.” The thought is evidently just this: Ina 
few days some of you will have the privilege of 
seeing me glorified in a wonderful way, revealing me 
as the master of my kingdom. All three synoptists 
follow the language of Jesus with an account of his 
transfiguration, specifying that it took place a week 
later. It is, therefore, clear that by the kingdom 
of God coming “in power” Jesus means simply his 
transfiguration; not the initiation of his kingdom 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 117 


but a demonstration of it. Just a little while before 
Jesus had said to Peter: “I will give unto thee the 
keys of the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 16: 19.) 
He will prove that he has the right to make such a 
claim and give such a promise. The two events are 
to be connected. That is, Jesus regards his kingdom 
as already in existence. (Cf. Luke 22: 18.) 

“If I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then 
is the kingdom of God come upon you.” (Matt. 12: 
28.) (Cf. Luke 11: 20.) Here the language leaves 
no room for escape. He does not say that the king- 
dom is near to them but upon them. The actual 
presence of the kingdom is affirmed. 

“Blessed is the king that cometh in the name of 
the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest. 
And some of the Pharisees from the multitude said 
unto him, Teacher, rebuke thy disciples. And he 
answered and said, I tell you that, if these should 
hold their peace, the stones will cry out.” (Luke 19: 
38-40.) Here Jesus’ disciples hailed him as king and 
he approved it. He said, moreover, that such a 
greeting must be given him; that nature would ex- 
tend it to him, if men did not. Notice it is not a 
prediction that they are making but heartfelt praise 
that they are uttering. They say that he is a king 
and he justifies them. He was then a king and he 
knew it. Compare Mark 11: 10, where they praise 
also the “kingdom of our father David.” These 
Galileans have spiritual insight. They understand 
that David’s kingdom is now again “set up.” 

“Henceforth ye shall see the son of nian sitting 
at the right hand of Power, and coming on the 
clouds of heaven.” (Matt. 26: 64.) Jesus had just 
confessed to Caiaphas that he is the “Christ, the 


118 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


Son of God.” He follows up that confession with this 
prophecy and claim of divine position, honor and 
authority. But notice that he does not say that 
royal place and power are to be bestowed upon him 
in the future but that “henceforth,” from now on, 
they will see him thus exalted. Compare the parallel 
passages, Mark 14: 62 and Luke 22: 69. Jesus is re- 
ferring to the demonstration of his resurrection and 
ascension. There is no doubt at all about the cor- 
rectness of this interpretation. The expression “com- 
ing on the clouds of heaven’ is not descriptive of 
his second coming and should not suggest it. Jesus 
would not explain nor reveal that glorious future 
event to a murderous unbeliever and judge, who did 
not believe in his first coming. The language re- 
sembles that of Daniel, 7: 13, “The son of man 
came with the clouds of heaven,” which Prof. Driver 
understands to be descriptive simply of one “in su- 
per-human majesty and state.” Into such a state 
Jesus did, immediately after his rejection by the 
Jews, enter. Their unbelief and rejection of him did 
not delay his enthronement but were steps to it. 
Their wicked purpose and deed God used to ac- 
complish his “determinate council.” (Acts 2: 23.) 
Compare also Mark 16: 19. 

“And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the king 
of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou 
sayest.” (Luke 23: 3.) The most important issue In 
the trial of Jesus before Pilate was whether or not 
he was a king. The Jews accused him of making the 
claim that he was and he confessed it and affirmed 
it. The superscription on his cross was: “This Is 
The King of the Jews.” (Luke 3: 38.) What they 
mockingly said was true. Paul said that Jesus “be- 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 119 


fore Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession.” (1 
Tim. 6: 13.) That confession was that he was then 
aking. (Cf. John 18: 37.) 

“All authority hath been given unto me in heaven 
and on earth.” (Matt. 28: 18.) If this language does 
not describe the honors and office of a king, no lan- 
guage could be found to do it. Jesus did not predict 
that such authority would be given him in the fu- 
ture but said that it had already been given to him. 
He is declaring to them what has been proved to 
be true by his resurrection and appearances. He is 
explaining why he has the right to give to them the 
great commission, the most audacious and the most 
sublime campaign ever imposed by a king upon loyal 
subjects or daring soldiers. 

Jesus, speaking from the throne of power on high, 
when he sends his last messages to the churches, 
says: “He that overcometh, I will give to him to sit 
down with me in my throne, as I also overcame, and 
sat down with my father in his throne.’ (Rev. 3: 
21.) The tenses of the verbs make it impossible to 
construe the aorist “sat” as a future act vividly con- 
ceived as complete. It points back to the same time 
that the aorist “overcame” points back to, that is, 
to Christ’s triumphant death and resurrection. It 
was then that he ascended to the throne and re- 
ceived the crown. 

Paul and other writers also of the New Testament 
spoke often of the kingdom as in existence in their 
time and conceived of Christ as then reigning. 

“Walk worthily of God, who calleth you into his 
own kingdom and glory.” (1 Thess. 2: 12.) He 

thinks of the Thessalonians as now in the kingdom. 


120 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


“The kingdom of God is not in word, but in 
power.” (1 Cor. 4: 20.) Paul is thinking of the 
power of the kingdom as manifested in true believ- 
ers in the church at Corinth, as it had been mani- 
fested in his preaching among them, and will be 
demonstrated by him should he visit them again. 
Can we suppose they had this quality of the king- 
dom and not the kingdom itself? Are they partak- 
ers of its power and not partakers of it? 

“The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, 
but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy 
Spirit.” (Rom. 14: 17.) Paul is exhorting Chris- 
tians in Rome to befitting conduct. This plea could 
have weight for those only whom he considered, and 
who considered themselves, to be in the kingdom. 

“Who delivered us out of the power of darkness, 
and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of 
his love; in whom we have our redemption, the for- 
giveness of our sins.” (Col. 1: 18-14.) These verses 
hardly need a comment. Paul counts himself and 
those to whom he writes as having already been 
“translated into the kingdom of the Son” of God, 
which is the same as having redemption or the for- 
giveness of sins. 

“He must reign till he hath put all enemies un- 
der his feet.” (1 Cor. 15: 25.) Paul thinks of Christ 
as now reigning. Not all acknowledge him as king, 
but he reigns nevertheless. There are enemies but 
in time they will be conquered. And when Christ’s 
purpose is accomplished he will turn over his king- 
dom, or subject it, himself and all, to the Father. 
This is what he plainly affirms. (1 Cor. 15: 27, 28.) 

“Seek the things that are above, where Christ is, 
seated on the right hand of God” (Col. 3: 1). Paul 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 121 


affirms that Christ was, when he wrote, “seated on 
the right hand of God.” He affirms the same fact 
in Rom. 8: 34 and Eph. 1: 20. The author of the 
Hebrews has the same conception of Christ and uses 
the same kind of language repeatedly. Consider 1: 
3; 8: 1; 10: 12; 12: 2. In these six cases the state- 
ments are that Christ: “is at the right hand of 
God”; was “made to sit at his right hand in the 
heavenly places”; “sat down on the right hand of 
the Majesty on high”; “sat down on the right hand 
of God”; “hath sat down at the right hand of the 
throne of God.” 

Peter, too, says that Christ “is on the right hand 
of God.” (1 Peter 3: 20.) 

Stephen in his great address says: “I see the heav- 
ens opened, and the Son of man standing on the 
right hand of God.” (Acts 7: 56.) This, of course, 
means that Christ has already been invested with 
royal power and not that he is waiting to receive it 
as some have foolishly fancied. To hinge an argu- 
ment on the word “standing” and to contend that 
Christ is not yet “seated” on the throne, as some 
critics are doing, is the result of an unfortunate 
slavery to words. They ought to study more the 
Scriptures, English grammar and the simple rules 
of rhetoric. It is to be regretted that any interpret- 
ers of the Bible, with many of its passages before 
them affirming that Christ is on the throne, should 
continue to affirm that he 1s not. 

In addition to the passages in the Hebrews already 
cited, in which the author affirms that Christ 1s at 
the right hand of power, consider this one also in 
which the author thinks of the kingdom as a reality 
in his time with a foundation that is immovable: 


122 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


“Wherefore receiving a kingdom that cannot be 
shaken, let us have grace, whereby we may offer 
service well-pleasing to God with reverence and 
awe.” (Heb. 12: 28.) 

There are many other passages that bear on this 
phase of the subject and force us to the same con- 
clusion. If the student wants to pursue the investi- 
gation further he may consider Matt. 13: 38; 1 Cor. 
6; 9-11; Gal. 5: Oras Hph, 52) 5s) Acts lieti20. 
20° 28: 23, 

We come now to Roneder briefly certain prophe- 
cies of the Old Testament relative to the kingdom 
of God and to Christ as king that were fulfilled in 
time of the New Testament. 

His very name, Messiah or Christ, meaning the 
“anointed one,” given him by his disciples and ap- 
proved by him (Matt. 16: 16, 17), signifies prince, 
ruler, king. 

“But thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah, which art lit- 
tle to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee 
shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in 
Israel.” (Mic. 5: 2.) 

This is a prophecy of the birth of Christ in Beth- 
lehem as king. The Wisemen asked, “Where is he 
that is born king of the Jews?” Herod asked the 
chief priests and scribes, ‘“Where the Christ should 
be born?” They pointed to this passage in Micah. 
It is clear that Matthew approves their conclusion. 
(Cf. Matt. 2: 1-12.) 

Above we pointed out that Jesus was greeted and 
hailed as king by his disciples upon the occasion of 
his entrance into Jerusalem at the beginning of the 
Passion Week, and that he approved the reception 
given him and the manner of it. Matthew says of 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 123 


this event: “Now this is come to pass that it might 
be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, 
saying: 
“Tell ye the daughter of Zion 
Behold thy king cometh unto thee, 
Meek and riding upon an ass, 


And upon a colt the foal of an ass.” 
—(Matt. 21: 4,5.) (Cf. Zech. 9: 9 and Isa. 62: 11.) 


The prophecy of the Old Testament that recog- 
nized Jesus as king was “fulfilled,” Matthew says, 
when Jesus was on earth. We ought to listen to 
Matthew. 

In the second Psalm we read: 


“Why do the nations rage, 

And the peoples imagine a vain thing? 

The kings of the earth set themselves, 

And the rulers take counsel together, 

Against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, 
Let us break their bands asunder 

And cast away their cords from us. 

Yet have I ‘set my king aca: 

Upon my holy hill of Zion.” (Ps. 2: 1-6.) 

Luke tells us that the disciples applied this pro- 
phecy to Herod and Pilate, the Gentiles and the 
Jews in their condemnation and crucifixion of Christ. 
(Acts 4: 25-28.) Jesus is not in a future day to be 
crowned king in Zion; he is now king in Zion. In 
the eternal purpose of God before the worlds were 
made he was anointed king, in the time of his earth- 
ly ministry he was established as king, and since 
then he has been winning subjects into his kingdom. 
Read all of the second Psalm. 


“Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: 
A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” (Ps. 45: 6.) 


124 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


The author of the Hebrews applies this to Christ 
as an already accomplished fact. (Heb. 1: 8.) 


“The Lord saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right rats 
Until I make thine enemies thy footsool.” (Ps. 110: 1.) 


Peter in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 
2: 34) and the author of the Hebrews (Heb. 1: 13) 
apply this passage to Christ as true in their day. 
And what is more, Jesus applied it to himself. (Matt. 
22: 43-45.) The thought is that Jesus is on the 
throne and is now reigning while his enemies are be- 
ing subdued. Compare 1 Cor. 15: 25. 

“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I 
will perform the good word which I have spoken 
concerning the house of Israel and concerning the 
house of Judah. In those days, and at that time, I 
will cause a branch of righteousness to grow up unto 
David; and he shall execute judgment and right- 
eousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be 
saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is 
the name whereby she shall be called, the Lord our 
righteousness. For thus saith the Lord: David shall 
never want a man to sit upon the throne of the 
house of Israel; neither shall the priests the Levites 
want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and 
to burn oblations, and to do sacrifice continually. 
And the word of the Lord came unto Jeremiah, 
saying, thus saith the Lord: If ye can break my 
covenant of the day and my covenant of the night, 
so that there should not be day and night in their 
season; then may also my covenant be broken with 
David my servant, that he should not have a son to 
reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the 
priests, my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 125 


be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured; 
so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and 
the Levites that minister unto me.” (Jer. 33: 14- 
22.) 

Take note of the following simple points concern- 
ing this prophecy: (1) It is a blessing for both Judah 
and Israel. (2) When once it comes it is to abide. 
(3) The blessing is designated as a son of David 
who will “reign upon his throne.” (4) He is de- 
scribed as a “branch of righteousness’ and the char- 
acter of his government is described by the expres- 
sion, “The Lord our righteousness.” (5) As a result 
of the reign of the son of David “Judah will be 
saved” and “Jerusalem shall dwell safely.” (6) As 
there is a king to reign continually so there is a 
priest to offer sacrifices also continually. (7) The 
increase of the “seed of David” and of the “Levites” 
is to be beyond numbering or measuring. 

The passage is, of course, Messianic. When 
Christ comes he will sit on the throne of David and 
his reign once begun will continue without a break. 
Christ also is the priest who will continue to offici- 
ate. Christ is a king forever as he is a “priest for- 
ever after the order of Melchizedek.” The “seed 
of David” and the “Levites” are one and the same, 
namely, Christians. Peter calls believers a “royal 
priesthood” (1 Peter 2: 9) and twice John calls 
them a “kingdom and priests.” (Rev. 1: 6; 5: 10.) 
(Cf. Ex. 19: 6 where there is probably the original 
basis for the conception.) It is a prophecy of Christ 
as king and as priest and of the increase and blessed- 
ness of his spiritual kingdom. It cannot refer to the 
return from captivity in Babylon nor can it refer to 
the second coming of Christ. Has this prophecy 


126 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


been without fulfillment for twenty-five centuries? 
Did Christ begin to reign and then abdicate the 
throne? When he comes again will he set up the 
priesthood also, in his own person or in the person 
of another? The idea is absurd, I care not who 
champion it. The epistle to the Hebrews makes it 
impossible. 

“And I will set up one shepherd over them, and 
he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall 
feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. And I, 
the Lord, will be their God, and my servant David 
prince among them, I, the Lord, have spoken it. 
And I will make with them a covenant of peace, 
and will cause evil beasts to cease out of the land: 
and they shall dwell securely in the wilderness, and 
sleep in the woods. And I will make them and the 
places round about my hill a blessing; and I will 
cause the shower to come down in its season; there 
shall be showers of blessing.” (Hz. 34: 23-26.) Read 
also Ezekiel 34: 12-16. 

This prophecy also is clearly Messianic. “David” 
is here the prophetic designation of Christ, as 
“branch” and “son” of David are in the passage 
from Jeremiah. Jesus is beautifully described as 
shepherd but he is also designated as prince, or as 
one having royal authority. 

In the above passages “Zion,” “my holy hill,” “my 
hill,” “Judah,” “Jerusalem” must be understood fig- 
uratively or symbolically or spiritually, as “Mount 
Zion” in Hebrews, 12: 22, must be. The writer of 
the epistle really says so. 

“In the days of these kings shall the God of 
heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be de- 
stroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 127 


another people; but it shall break in pieces and con- 
sume all these kingdoms and it shall stand for ever.” 
(Dan. 2: 44.) Read also Daniel 7: 13, 14. 

That this is a Messianic passage predicting the 
Christian age there can be almost no doubt in the 
minds of those who believe in the inspiration of 
Daniel. The claims of Jesus for himself before 
Caiaphas (Matt. 26: 64) and before his disciples 
(Matt. 28: 18) resemble Daniel’s description of the 
king of the “everlasting kingdom.” (Dan. 7: 13-14.) 
The Revelator’s description of Christ and his king- 
dom resembles in several instances Daniel’s lan- 
guage in the passage cited. (Cf. Rev. 11: 15; 12: 10; 
9: 9, 11, 18; 15: 3.) So also does the language of 
Gabriel to Mary concerning Jesus. (Luke 1: 33.) 

Thus we see that Micah, David, the author of 
Psalm 45, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Zechariah 
had visions of Christ in his first coming as a king: 
and that the New Testament itself states definitely 
that this is the interpretation to be given to the pre- 
dictions of four of these prophets, David, the author 
of Psalm 45, Micah and Zechariah. 

The idea that Jesus intended to set up his king- 
dom on earth, but on account of being rejected by 
the Jews changed his plan and deferred its estab- 
lishment to a future date, should not be entertained 
for a moment. Did their unbelief and madness 
make void the purpose of God? Does the eternal 
and glorious purpose of God depend upon the will 
of man? Far be it. God, on the contrary, makes 
“the wrath of man to praise him.” Christ’s being 
rejected by the Jews, and Gentiles, too, was the very 
means God used to establish his kingdom. 


128 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


“The stone which the builders rejected, 

The same was made the head of the corner; 

This was from the Lord, 

And it is marvelous in our eyes.” (Matt. 21: 42.) 

Jesus quotes this prophecy from Psalm 118: 22, 
23 and applies it to himself and the leaders of the 
Jews. That is, the Jews’ rejection of Christ did not 
defeat the purpose of God, but caused it to be real- 
ized. Peter also tells the leaders of the Jews, who 
were the crucifiers of Christ, that this prophecy 
applies to Christ and to them. (Acts 4: AT es 
his first epistle Peter again makes the same use of 
this prophecy, adding that to those that believe the 
stone is “elect, precious,” but to the unbelieving 
and disobedient it is a “rock of offence”; and he af- 
firms that they were appointed to this very thing. 
(1 Peter 2: 6-8.) 

Paul in his address to the Jews and others in the 
synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia says: “Hor they 
that dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because 
they knew him not, nor the voices of the prophets 
which are read every sabbath, fulfilled them by 
condemning him.’ (Acts 18: 27.) This is like 
Peter’s statement on the day of Pentecost, that Je- 
sus “being delivered up by the determinate coun- 
sel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of 
lawless men did crucify and slay.” (Acts 2: 23. Cf. 
4: 27, 28.) Paul, speaking of the unbelief of the 
Jews, says: “For what if some disbelieved? Shall 
their disbelief make void the faithfulness of God? 
Far be it.” (Rom. 3: 3, 4.) 

It was God’s plan that Christ should be the chief 
cornerstone in his temple. The builders said they 
would not have it so. God, the great Architect, 
said: “By your very wilfulness and disobedience I 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 129 


will cause it to be so.””’ The purpose of God to “set 
his king upon his holy hill of Zion” was not changed 
at all. It was fulfilled perfectly. 

Christ 1s prophet, priest and king. 

He is the world’s teacher. He is truth and wis- 
dom. When men stop and listen to him and learn 
from him they find the way of life. He has ever 
been the world’s teacher. But in the “days of his 
flesh” he was manifested as such. He is now the 
world’s teacher. Though the Jews and the Gentiles 
did not receive him, he is, nevertheless, the “light 
of the world.” He never resigned this office. 

He is a priest, an eternal priest, “a priest forever 
after the order of Melchizedek,” “having neither be- 
ginning of days, nor end of life.’ Christ as the 
great high priest of spiritual things now officiates 
in the “holy place,” that is, in heaven itself, making 
intercession for us, as the Hebrew high priest did 
for the nation of Israel on the great day of Atone- 
ment. He has not resigned this office, either. It 
matters not if the nation of the Jews does not re- 
ceive him as such. Does their unbelief make of no 
effect the purpose and decree of God? Let one who 
is confused on this subject read and understand the 
epistle of the Hebrews, and he will rejoice in the 
illumination he finds there. 

So also Christ is king now and has been since he 
entered upon the office. Where is the proof or the 
faintest intimation that he abdicated the throne or 
was forced out of office? Who was strong enough to 
do it? Was he weak? Did he fail? Isaiah did not 
so see him. “He shall not fail nor be discouraged, 
till he have set judgment in the earth; the isles shall 
wait for his law.” (Isa. 42: 4.) “Therefore will I 


130 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


divide him a portion with the great, and he shall 
divide the spoil with the strong.” (Isa. 53: 125) 

Reason also compels us to conclude, since these 
offices are in nature what they are that Christ in 
order to function in the first two, must function also 
in the third. If he is now the prophet and priest of 
his people he is now also their king. In fact, mn 
Hebrews often Christ’s priesthood involves his king- 
ship and the thought of the one glides naturally 
into the thought of the other. (Cf. Heb. 1: 3; 8: 1 
2: 10: 12; 12: 2.) It is impossible for Christ to be 
such a priest as he is described as being in the He- 
brews and not also be a king. “A priest forever 
after the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5: 6), that 
is, an eternal priest who is also an eternal king of 
righteousness and of peace. (Heb. 7: 1-3.) 

We need to enlarge our conception of Christ. 

Many Christians in their thinking limit Christ. 
When I was a young Christian I did so more than 
Ido now. It seemed to me then that he ruled in the 
religious sphere but had nothing to do with, or was 
impotent as to, any other. But “his kingdom ruleth 
over all.” (Ps. 103: 19.) “He is before all things, and 
in him all things consist.” (Col. 1: 17.) “Christ, in 
whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge 
hidden.” (Col. 2: 3.) “In him dwelleth all the ful- 
ness of the Godhead bodily, and in him ye are made 
full, who is the head of all principality and power.” 
(Col. 2: 9,10.) “Fear not; I am the first and the 
last, and the living one; and I was dead, and behold, 
I am alive forever more, and I have the keys of 
death and Hades.” (Rev. 1: 17, 18.) 

For a long time it was difficult for me to under- 
stand Rev. 5: 1-14. Why was it such a great achieve- 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 131 


ment to open the seals of the book? Why could 
Christ only do that? I think I see it now. The 
thought is very beautiful. The book is the record 
of future history. He only can open the book, or 
reveal future history, who is able to make future 
history. It is a picture of Christ as one who directs 
the course of events of the world. History is Christ’s 
way of doing things. For tools he uses the forces of 
nature and men, both subjects and rebels. 

David was anointed first in secret by Samuel. 
It was God’s anointing. Then followed years of 
trial and training in which he revealed his fitness 
for the office. Then Judah anointed him and pro- 
claimed him king. And after a time Israel in turn 
also anointed him and made him their king. (Cf. 
1 Sam. 16: 13; 2 Sam. 2: 4; 5: 3.) They saw his 
worth and gave him his rightful place. By the pur- 
pose of God and by his merit he won the crown. 

In the secret and eternal purpose of God Jesus 
was anointed king. In the course of time he showed 
himself worthy and revealed his kingly character. 
He paid the price and it is his right to reign. More 
and more believing men and women anoint him se- 
cretly in their hearts and publicly put the crown 
upon his head. An ever-increasing host on earth 
and in heaven are saying: 

“Worthy is the Lamb that hath been slain to receive the power, 
and riches, and wisdom, and might, and honor, and glory, and 
blessing.” (Rev. 5: 12.) 

By God’s eternal decree, by his own infinite merit, 
by the acclaim of numberless angels and saints, he 
is NOW 

King in heaven and on earth! 


ae 


fe 





SOME DIFFICULTIES IRONED 
OWT 


Jerusalem, the golden, 

With milk and honey blest! 
Beneath thy contemplation 

Sink heart and voice oppressed ; 
I know not, O I know not 

What joys await me there; 
What radiancy of glory, 

What bliss beyond compare. 


They stand, those halls of Zion, 
All jubilant with song, 
And bright with many an angel, 
And all the martyr throng; 
The Prince is ever in them, 
The daylight is serene; 
The pastures of the blessed 
Are decked in glorious sheen. 


CHAPTER VI 


SOME DIFFICULTIES IRONED 
OUT 


No doubt the reader has felt, as we have pro- 
ceeded, some difficulties in the way of adopting, as 
confidently as he may have wished to do, some of 
the views set forth in the previous chapters. The 
writer has been aware of these difficulties. They are 
real difficulties and should be faced and fairly dealt 
with. At this point in the discussion it seems best 
to attempt to “iron out” certain of these difficulties, 
and thereby suggest principles and methods by 
which most of them, if not all, may be cleared up. 

1. There is a difficulty that is general and com- 
mon to all philosophy, metaphysics and psychology. 
It is the limitation of human thought. It is felt 
by the child keenly when he first faces the fact of 
mind. I myself remember experiencing it. I have 
noted the perplexity of my children as they came to 
this important step in their mental development. 
But with it comes a heightened sense of personal 
worth and dignity. 

The kingdom of God, as we are interpreting it, 
is in this respect like philosophy, metaphysics and 
psychology. We must be able, if we would under- 
stand it, to pass from the material to the spiritual. 
Every Christian is capable of doing this. His ex- 
perience of becoming a Christian fits him for it. 
i ) [ 135 J 


136 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


But this does not make all things clear. There will 
continue to be hard problems to solve. It took time 
for the apostles to understand the nature of the 
kingdom. It is to a great degree a matter of spir- 
itual development. The first disciples were greatly 
helped by the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day 
of Pentecost but after that remarkable experience 
they had much also to learn about the kingdom. 

2. Finding suitable words to express the truth is 
a great difficulty. It is a problem that is created 
not only by the limitations of language itself, but 
also by the limited vocabulary of the speaker and 
the hearer. 

Jesus felt the weakness of words to express the 
nature of the kingdom, when he asked: “How shall 
we liken the kingdom of God? or in what parable 
shall we set it forth?” (Mark 4: 30.) Its truths he 
described as “mysteries.” (Matt. 18: 11.) Every 
missionary who translates the gospel into a heathen 
tongue realizes the force of what is here said. Stu- 
dents of psychology who have gone far into the 
subject know that many words used to designate 
mental states and acts were originally used for 
physical states and acts and that on this account it 
is difficult and sometimes impossible to make these 
words, weighed down with suggestions of the physi- 
cal, convey the exact idea as to the mental. One 
element of greatness in the late William James was 
his ability to coin or combine words so as to over- 
come this difficulty. Certain ancient metaphysicians 
complained of words and said that they obscured 
their thoughts rather than illumined them; that 
they concealed rather than revealed the truth of 
which they were speaking. They insisted rightly 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 137 


that we should pay attention to the thought rather 
than to the words. Words should be “signs of 
ideas,” suggestions of truth, and not its imprison- 
ment nor its obscuring. This weakness of words, 
observed by interpreters of the ideal world, is felt 
especially by interpreters of the spiritual world. 
Paul called Christ the “unspeakable gift” of God. (2 
Cor. 9: 15.) 

Consider the very important Christian doctrine 
of love. The Septuagint translators and the New 
Testament writers did not use the common Greek 
noun for love, but used agape. This word became 
the common Christian term to express the concep- 
tion of love that is essential to the kingdom of God. 
Evidently there were suggestions in the common 
Greek noun for love, philia, that the writers of the 
New Testament wanted to avoid. The same is true 
in a less degree of the common New Testament verb 
for love, agapao, which also was uncommon in classi- 
cal Greek. 

But it is evident that the use of new words, and 
the popularizing also of uncommon or rare ones, 
must be sparingly indulged in. Advocates of new 
and strange ideas must make out the best they can 
with the vocabularly that is at hand. It is not their 
business to create a new language, but to translate 
their thoughts into existing languages. The result 
is that some words in the Bible are made to do new 
duty. They are adapted to a spiritual service. Paul 
says that he selected spiritual words for his spiritual 
message. That is, he used the words of the Greek 
language that would best convey spiritual ideas. (Cf. 
1 Cor. 2: 13.) We may not be able to overcome 


138 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


entirely this difficulty but to be aware of it will be 
a great help. 

3. We come thus naturally to a third difficulty, 
the problem of figurative language in the Bible. 

Two extreme positions must be rejected, namely, 
that there are no figures of speech in the Bible and 
that all statements of the Bible have a double sense, 
a literal meaning and a spiritual meaning both. The 
first theory will lead us nowhere; the second theory 
will lead us anywhere. The first theory is the result 
of mental crudeness; the second theory is the result 
of a spiritualizing mania. 

The Bible contains figurative language. It makes 
use of symbols. Some statements have a double 
sense, or more than one application. Some must be 
understood spiritually and not literally. “Let the 
Bible say what it wants to say and let it mean what 
it says,” is a dangerous rule. It will land us in the 
ditch. This is a better motto: “Let the Bible say 
what it says and let it mean what it wants to mean.” 
Often we meet figures of speech in the Bible and 
when we do we ought to interpret them as such. 
Figurative language is natural. We all make use of 
it. If the Bible did not contain such language it 
would be, not a supernatural book which it is, but 
an unnatural book which it is not. Jesus often used 
figures of speech. He said: “This is my body.” 
(Matt. 22: 26.) But he did not mean for us to take 
that literally. He said: ‘““My flesh is meat indeed 
and my blood is drink indeed.” (John 6: 55.) But 
when his hearers became confused as to his mean- 
ing he explained to them that his language was not 
to be taken literally. (Cf. John 6: 63.) He said 
that John the Baptist was Elijah. (Matt. 11: 14; 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 139 


17: 12.) But he meant, of course, that John the 
Baptist, coming “in the spirit and power of Elijah,” 
was the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy that Eli- 
jah must again appear. (Mal. 4: 5; Luke 1: 17.) 
It would be useless to multiply instances of this kind 
which could be produced without limit not only for 
Jesus, but also Peter and John and Paul. If one will 
study his own speech in this respect he will see how 
often he uses language that must not be taken lit- 
erally, how a literal interpretation of what he says 
would be a rude injustice to him. 

Some men are too severely mathematical, too 
prosaic, too bereft of imagination to understand 
aright much of the Scriptures. They remind me of 
the mathematician who was impatient with all 
poetry to whom his friend, an enthusiastic admirer 
of poetry, was reading favorite selections from Ten- 
nyson. When he got to the lines in the Charge of 
the Light Brigade, which run, 


“Half a league, half a league, half a league onward, 

Into the valley of death rode the six hundred, .. . 
it was too much for his mathematical friend, who 
broke in with disgust: “If the fool wanted to say a 
league and a half, why didn’t he say it!” 

Now in the Bible there is fine rhetoric and fine 
poetry as well as fine logic and fine prose. He 1s a sin- 
ner who does not interpret every kind of language 
according to its nature, as it ought to be interpreted, 
logic as logic, prose as prose, poetry as poetry, rhe- 
toric as rhetoric. There are symbols that must be 
interpreted as symbols. There are allegories and 
- types and parables that must be interpreted as al- 
legories and types and parables, and not as other 
kinds of statements are interpreted. 


140 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


One says: “But is there not danger in treating 
some of the language of the Bible as figurative? 
May not one be dogmatic in deciding what is figur- 
ative or literal? May he not use it as a method by 
which the truth of God’s Word is explained away?” 
Yes, there is danger in it, and some have in this 
way set aside the truth of God’s Word. But it isa 
proper method, nevertheless. Those that abuse it, 
upon them be the blame! Not upon those that use 
it lawfully. Upon these be the blessing! There is 
danger in many things that are good and necessary. 
There is danger in talking, in walking, in eating, in 
fact in living. Let the interpreter be careful about 
saying a given passage is figurative. His conscience 
ought to be active as well as his exegetical faculty. 
But the interpreter who says it is not figurative 
ought to have his conscience in good working or- 
der, too. 

What, after all, is language? It is the highly de- 
veloped art of the use of signs or symbols. All words 
are but signs of ideas. The distinction between 
literal and figurative language is often a matter of 
degree. In translation, in exegesis, in interpretation, 
in application, in all handling of the Word of God, 
we are put upon our honor and should use both our 
wisdom and our conscience. 

We must not go further into the inviting field of 
the science of hermeneutics. It was necessary to go 
thus far in order to make clear some things already 
said and also to prepare the way for what is now to 
follow. 

In the very nature of the case we should expect 
to find the kingdom of God spoken of in figure and 
symbol. When we understand the character of the 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 141 


kingdom we see that figurative language is not only 
proper but necessary. We are often shut up to tt. 
It ws figurative language or silence. 

Consider such psychological terms as perception, 
perspective, conception, apprehend, comprehend, 
sub-conscious, attention, intention, impression, 1m- 
pulse, understand, recollection, imagination, affec- 
tion, emotion, ecstasy, idea, etc. They were at first 
figures of speech. Why did psychologists use them? 
They had to. They had to use such terms to de- 
scribe mental processes and states or not talk about 
the mind at all. They elected to talk. Men in- 
spired of God also chose to talk about the kingdom. 
They did the best they could, considering the limita- 
tions of thought and of language and the nature of 
that concerning which they spoke. The kingdom 
of God is “difficult to define,” says Prof. G. B. Stev- 
ens, “not because it means nothing in particular, 
but because it means so much.” 

Let us examine some specific examples. The more 
natural process and also the easier one for us is to 
work from the New Testament back into the Old. 

Such use of language is frequent in Paul. He 
writes to the Philippians: ‘Beware of the concision: 
for we are the circumcision, who worship by the 
Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no 
confidence in the flesh.” (Phil. 3: 2,3.) He thinks 
of Christians as spiritual Israel. Paul understood 
circumcision to be an outward sign of inward faith. 
Abraham, he said, “received the sign of circumci- 
sion (circumcision as a sign), a seal of the righteous- 
ness of the faith which he had while he was in un- 
circumcision.” (Rom. 4: 11.) Explaining more fully, 
he says: ‘He is not a Jew who is one outwardly; 


142 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


neither is that circumcision which is outward in the 
flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and cir- 
cumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit and not 
in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God.” 
(Rom. 2: 28, 29.) So he writes thus to the Colos- 
sians: “In whom (Christ) ye were also circumcised 
with a circumcision not made with hands, in the 
putting off of the body of the flesh, im the circum- 
cision of Christ.” (Col. 2: 11.) This figurative use, 
or spiritual adaptation, of the word circumcision is 
not a new thing in the New Testament. It is found 
in the Old Testament. (Cf. Jer. 4: 4.) 

In all these passages the thought is really very 
simple; it is this, that the true Israel of God is not 
the nation of the Jews but the people that believe, 
both Jews and Gentiles. God’s people are not de- 
termined by any mark of the flesh but by a mark of 
the soul, their faith. (Cf. Rom. 4: 9-17.) Consid- 
er again: “Neither is circumcision anything, nor un- 
circumcision but a new creature. And as many as 
shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and 
mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” (Gal. 6: 15, 
16.) To Paul those who are “new creatures’ in 
Christ constitute the “Israel of God.” All descen- 
dants of Jacob constitute “Israel after the flesh.” (1 
Cor. 10: 18.) 

The transition of Paul’s thought is from carnal 
circumcision to spiritual circumcision, from carnal 
Israel to spiritual Israel; just as in the evolution of 
psychological terms the process is from the material 
to the mental. But the point for us to note is that 
the kingdom of God must be identical with spiritual 
Israel. Let us hear Paul again. 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 143 


“Tell me ye that desire to be under the law, do 
ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abra- 
ham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one 
by the freewoman. Howbeit the son of the hand- 
maid is born after the flesh; but the son of the free- 
woman is born through promise. Which things con- 
tain an allegory: for these women are two cove- 
nants; one from Mount Sinai, bearing children unto 
bondage, which is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount 
Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to the Jerusalem 
that now is: for she is in bondage with her children. 
But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our 
mother. For it is written, 


Rejoice thou barren that bearest not; 

Break forth and cry, thou that travaileth no 

For more are the children of the desolate Aa of her that hath 
the husband. 


Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are children of 
promise. But as then, he that was born after the 
flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, 
so also it is now. Howbeit what saith the Scrip- 
ture? Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the 
son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of 
the freewoman. Wherefore, brethren, we are not 
children of a handmaid, but of the freewoman.” 
(Gal. 4: 21-31.) 

This passage hardly needs a comment, but notice 
“Mount Sinai,’ “Jerusalem that now is’ and “Je- 
rusalem that is above.” This last answers to or 
rather is, the kingdom of God. “Jerusalem that 
now is” answers to Hagar and her son and is “cast 
out.” That is, it is the spiritual kingdom that God 
receives and blesses; the national kingdom of the 
Jews he rejects; that is, the Jews as a nation God 


144 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


casts away. (Cf. Rom. 11: 15.) As a nation they 
have served their purpose. God does not need them 
any more. Jesus said of the “Jerusalem that now 
is’: “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” 
(Matt. 23: 38.) The Jews as a nation are now like 
the scaffolding of the house when the house is com- 
pleted. It is pulled down and carted away. God 
cares for the Jews as individuals and wants them to 
be saved, but as a nation he has no more purpose 
with them, unless it be to use them as a sign. The 
people of the Jews are no longer Israel. They have 
become as Hagar, as Sinai. As a nation they are a 
thing of the past and will ever remain so. Hear 
Paul yet again: 

“For not all they are Israel, who are of Israel; 
neither, because they are Abraham’s seed, are they 
all children; but (as is said in Gen. 21: 12) in Isaac 
shall thy seed be called. That is, not they who are 
the children of the flesh are children of God; but the 
children of the promise are reckoned as seed.” (Rom. 
9: 6-8. Cf. Gal. 3: 7.) “Even so then at this pres- 
ent time also there is a remnant according to the 
election of grace’ (Rom. 11: 5). Paul is speaking 
of that part or remnant of the Jews who believe. 
They with the Gentiles who believe constitute the 
true Israel of God. (Cf. Zeph. 3: 13.) 

Accordingly when Paul says, “And so all Israel 
shall be saved” (Rom. 11: 26), he can mean only 
spiritual Israel. With Paul “saved” signifies not 
restored to their land as a nation, but redeemed, de- 
livered from “ungodliness” as the context shows. 
Only Jews who believe in Christ turn from their 
ungodliness. If one understands Paul to mean that 
all the descendants of Jacob are saved in the sense 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 145 


of having their sins forgiven and going to heaven, 
he makes Paul state what is contrary to fact; for, 
for eighteen centuries, they have been living in un- 
belief and dying in sin. In this sense not all the 
Jews will be saved and not all have ever been saved. 
But in this sense all the true Israel of God have 
been, are and will be saved. Paul’s only hope for 
the Jews is that “some” of them will be saved. (Cf. 
Rom. 11: 14;:1-Cor. 9: 22.) 

Peter also considers that Christians make up 
God’s “holy nation.” Contrasting believers with 
unbelieving Jews, he says: “But ye are an elect 
race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for 
God’s own possession.” (1 Peter 2: 9.) 

The gospel itself is connected essentially with the 
distinction that is here insisted upon. John the 
Baptist said to his hearers: “Think not to say within 
yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I 
say unto you, that God is able of these stones to 
raise up children unto Abraham.” (Matt. 3: 9.) 
That was an interpreting note in his message. 

Above we quoted a passage in Galatians in which 
Paul speaks of the “Jerusalem that is above” as 
“our mother,” that is, as the kingdom of God. It is 
a beautiful conception, and is natural in our worship 
and devotional literature. There is another word of 
similar history and the same delightful suggestions, 
the word Zion. When we sing “The Holy City” and 
“Zion Stands with Hills Surrounded,” our spirits 
soar aloft on wings. We do not need an explanation 
of our mental processes or of the theology involved, 
When we sing these songs we are necessarily ortho: 
dox. They are natural and inspiring to the Chris- 
tian faith and vision. We are not thinking of the 


146 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


actual city of Jerusalem and its mountains at all. 
We are thinking of the kingdom of God. We can 
sings these songs here in America, we who have not 
seen Jerusalem, as well as if we were in the city and 
perhaps a little better than if we were there. Now 
this transition in thought from Jerusalem, or Zion, 
the earthly, to Jerusalem, or Zion, the heavenly, 
was natural and common in the writers of the New 
Testament as it is in devout worshipers of the pres- 
ent time. 

Let us look at a few more passages containing 
these noble names, especially Zion. (1) It was first 
the name of one of the mountains of Jerusalem, 
where David lived and where he had the seat of his 
government, and where also he pitched the tent for 
the ark, before the Temple was built on Mount 
Moriah. (2) Naturally in the development of the 
nation it came to signify the land of Palestine and 
the people of Israel. (Cf. Ps. 9: 14; 137: 1, 3; 149: 
Disa sls Qi Ole Loma nes, 2. 7: Jer, See 
Mich. 1: 13.) (3) Then it came to mean the “Tsrael 
of God,” the redeemed, the saved, those that consti- 
tute the kingdom of God. These terms, Jerusalem 
and Zion are “twin sisters’; as respects the second 
and third uses assigned to Zion they are synony- 
mous; they are often found together in Old Testa- 
ment parallel statements, where either may have the 
meaning of the other. 

Consider first an indisputable case in the New 
Testament. We have used it before, but it serves 
our purpose perfectly again here. 

“For ye have not come to a mount that is touched 
and burning with fire, nor to blackness, and dark- 
ness, and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 147 


the voice of words; which voice they who heard 
entreated that no word more should be spoken to 
them; for they could not bear that which was 
charged, Even if a beast touch the mountain, it 
shall be stoned; and so terrible was the sight, that 
Moses said, I am terrified, and trembling. But ye 
have come to mount Zion, and to the city of the 
living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads 
of angels, to the general assembly and church of 
the firstborn (ones), who are enrolled in heaven, 
and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of 
righteous men perfected; and to Jesus the media- 
tor of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprink- 
ling, that speaks better than Abel.” (Heb. 12:18-24.) 

This passage is both simple and conclusive. If 
we desired to do so, we could not get loose from its 
grip. “Mount Zion,” “the city of the living God,’ 
“the heavenly Jerusalem” and “the general assem- 
bly and church of the firstborn (ones),”’ all mean 
the same, namely, the saved, the redeemed, the spir- 
itual people of God, his kingdom. This is so obvious 
that it needs no proof. But let the reader consider 
how far-reaching this fact is. I am thankful that 
I had occasion years ago to study carefully the book 
of Hebrews. That study has helped me very much 
to understand the doctrine of the kingdom. 

Consider a case from Peter: 

“Behold I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious; 

And he that believeth on him shall not be put to shame.” 

(1 Pet. 2: 6. Cf. Rom. 9: 33.) 

It is not absolutely certain, but probable, that 
Zion here has the third meaning assigned to it. It 
is certain it is not the first. The second meaning is 
possible. The stone then would signify Christ as 


148 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


being, according to the flesh, a Jew. A “stone laid 
in Zion” could point to salvation coming from the 
Jews, as Jesus explained to the woman at Jacob’s 
well that it does. (John 4: 22.) 

This idea, so far as the mere words are concerned, 
is expressed more plainly thus by Paul: 

“There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer: 

He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 

And this is my covenant unto them 


When I shall take away their sins.” 
(1 Pet. 2: 6. Cf. Rom. 9: 33.) 


But since “Jacob” here, it seems, signifies spiritual 
Israel, Zion would naturally mean that also. Again 
consider that Zion in both passages is not thought 
of merely as the sphere of salvation, but as the 
source of it. The “Deliverer”’ shall “come out of 
Zion” in the sense of being “produced” by Zion. 
This is certainly the conception here. Now it was 
not carnal Israel, but spiritual Israel, that 1s, the 
kingdom of God, that produced Christ in the sense 
here thought of. In Rey. 12: 1-6 we have this exact — 
conception of the relation of the kingdom of God and 
Christ under the symbols of a “woman arrayed with 
the sun” and her “son, a man child, who is to rule 
all the nations with a rod of iron.” The “son, a man 
child,” is, of course, Christ. The “woman arrayed 
with the sun” is not Mary, the mother of Jesus, but 
the spiritual kingdom of God. Since Paul thinks 
of Jerusalem, or the spiritual kingdom, as “our 
mother” (Gal. 4: 26), it is only natural that Christ, 
our “elder brother,” should be thought of as her 
son. 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 149 


“Tell ye the daughter of Zion 
Behold, thy king cometh unto thee, 
Meek, and riding upon an ass, 
And upon a colt the foal of an ass.” 
CMatie 215) Che Inori2 > 15)) 


Does Matthew set forth Jesus as the rightful king 
of national Israel, or as the actual king of spiritual 
Israel? It seems quite certain that he is doing the 
latter. Jesus is king of national Israel; that is, he 
was appointed of God to be king of the Jews in the 
same sense in which he was appointed to be king of 
the Gentiles, also. He was never anointed to be a 
temporal king; just as he was never ordained to be 
a priest after the order of Aaron. “Behold, thy king 
cometh!” ‘That is said to me, a believing Gentile, 
as well as to those Galileans. 

“And I saw, and behold, the Lamb standing on 
Mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty and 
four thousand, having his name, and the name of 
his Father, written on their foreheads.” (Rev. 14: 
1.) Here Zion cannot have either the first or sec- 
ond meaning, but certainly signifies the place of the 
saved as it does in Heb. 12: 22. 

We have given examples enough from the New 
Testament. Let us now examine a few from the 
Old Testament. But before doing so we should con- 
sider three things: 

First, in all predictive passages of the Bible highly 
wrought figures of speech, especially, and bold sym- 
bols are found. In Daniel, Ezekiel and Zechariah 
we see shining examples of this fact. Some passages 
in Isaiah and Jeremiah exhibit the same style in a 
less brilliant degree. Revelation excels them all. It 
is an ordered delirium of words, of figures and sym- 
bols. This kind of language appears also in the brief 


150 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


utterances of Jesus and Paul concerning the last 
things. (Matt. 24: 1-31; 2 Thess. 2: 1-12.) We 
cannot here inquire into the cause of this fact, but 
must be content simply to note it. Such inquiry, 
it is certain, would yield a rich reward. 

Secondly, the writers of predictive prophecy have 
the right to use words as they see fit. It is not my 
privilege to prejudge them or to determine their 
method of expression, Am I, a man not inspired, to 
judge in advance how inspired men shall write, or 
to limit the Holy Spirit’s use of words? Who am 
I that I should do this ambitious thing? It is my 
business to learn and not to dictate in this matter. 

Thirdly, the prophets themselves did not under- 
stand all the meaning that there was in what they 
said. This is a vital principle of interpretation. 
About twenty-five years ago I heard President W. R. 
Harper, in lecturing on certain of the Minor Proph- 
ets, state that no more meaning should be put into 
the language of Scripture than that which the writer 
or speaker himself considered it to have. I believe 
that this is a principle of interpretation that is fun- 
damentally wrong. It is a theory of inspiration that 
is too limiting. Daniel states specifically in one case 
that he did not understand what he heard and re- 
lated. (Dan. 12: 8.) Peter suggests that this limita- 
tion of knowledge was a common thing with those 
who wrote Messianic prophecies. (1 Pet. 1: 10-12.) 
Some utterances of the prophets have more mean- 
ing in them than the prophets themselves under- 
stood to be in them; some, I say, not all. 

Remember that we are undertaking to show that 
the first coming of Jesus is predicted in the Old 
Testament in highly wrought figures of speech, in 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 151 


bold symbols and realistic language; that many pas- 
sages do not refer wholly or maimly, or at all, to 
Israel’s condition in Palestine after the Babylonian 
exile, nor to any condition in Palestine or on earth 
after the second coming of Christ; but that they 
describe his first coming and the “glories that should 
follow.” (Cf. 1 Peter 1: 11.) 

There are many passages that invite discussion, 
and they tempt us to an extended exposition. A 
volume would be required to give the subject an ex- 
haustive treatment. But space permits ys to deal 
with only a few examples, and that briefly. 

“The spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because 
the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings 
unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the 
broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives 
and the opening of the prison to them that are 
bound, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” 
(Isa. 61: 1, 2.) 

Jesus read this passage of Isaiah to the congrega- 
tion in the synagogue in Nazareth and said that it 
was then “fulfilled in their ears.” (Cf. Luke 4: 18- 
21.) But did Jesus open prison doors and turn the 
convicts out? Nothing like that is to be thought 
of. The language is realistic, but the thought is 
spiritual. Some clauses of this Messianic prophecy 
are to be taken literally, but not this one. 


“Yet have I set my king 

Upon my holy hill of Zion. 

I will tell of the decree: 

The Lord said unto me, 

Thou art my son 

This day have I begattet thee.” 
(Ps52:657:) 


152 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


This second Psalm has unity. All of its parts 
are related. The disciples in Jerusalem apply part 
of it to Jesus, the Jews and the Gentiles of their day. 
(Acts 4: 25-27.) The author of the Hebrews twice 
quotes the last two lines given above, applying them 
to Christ as already fulfilled. (Heb. 1: 5; 5: 5.) That 
is, when the New Testament was written Christ 
was king in Zion. That is, Zion here cannot be 
taken literally. 

“Behold, the days-come, saith the Lord, that I 
will make a new covenant with the house Israel, 
and with the house Judah: not according to the 
covenant that I made with their fathers in the day 
that I took them by the hand to bring them out of 
the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, 
although I was a husband unto them, saith the 
Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with 
the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; 
I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their 
heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and 
they shall be my people: and they shall teach no 
more every man his neighbor, and every man his 
brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all 
know me from the least of them to the greatest of 
them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniq- 
uity, and their sin will I remember no more.” (Jer. 
31: 31-34.) 

Concerning this prophecy these three things are 
certainly true. First, it is fulfilled in Christ’s first 
coming. The author of the Hebrews says so. He 
quotes the whole passage. (Heb. 8: 8-12.) Secondly, 
the “house of Israel” and “the house of Judah” 
must, therefore, mean spiritual Israel and cannot 
mean national Israel. Thirdly, the description of the 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 153 


age of the New Covenant, namely, “they shall all 
know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of 
them,” however it is interpreted, must apply to our 
age and not to some time or age after Christ comes 
again. There is no escape from this conclusion for 
those who accept the inspiration of the book of 
Hebrews. (Cf. Jer. 32: 40, 41; 33: 14-22; Ezek. 
37: 26-28; Heb. 2: 14.) 

“And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and 
ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from 
all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also 
will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within 
you: and I will take away the stony heart out of 
your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And 
I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to 
walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my Judgments 
and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that 
I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, 
and I will be your God. And I will save you from 
your uncleanness; and I will call for the corn, and 
will multiply it, and lay no famine upon you. And 
I will multiply the fruit of the tree, and the increase 
of the field.” (Ezek. 36: 25-30. Cf. 11: 17-20.) Read 
on in the chapter to verse 37. 

The prophet describes in realistic terms a delecta- 
ble and supernatural state as Israel’s future destiny 
in Palestine after their return from exile. But, 
though he uses terms descriptive of national Israel 
restored to their beloved land, his language can- 
not be limited to that, nor is it applicable mainly 
to that. Because much of the language cannot be 
applied to their state after the return. Their post- 
exilic history does not fit this description. Besides 
part of this passage, the main thought of it, is ful- 


154 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


filled in the Christian age. Compare verse 26 of this 
passage with verse 33 of the passage just quoted 
from Jeremiah, which the writer of the Hebrews un- 
derstands is fulfilled in the Christian age. Compare 
also verse 25 with Hebrews 10: 22. This prophecy 
of Ezekiel is likewise fulfilled in the gospel. We 
are, therefore, not to look for its literal fulfilment in 
an age yet to be. 

“Thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I will take 
the children of Israel from among the nations, 
whither they are gone, and I will gather them on 
every side, and bring them into their own land: and 
I will make them one nation in the land, upon the 
mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king of 
them all: and they shall be no more two nations, 
neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any 
more at all: neither shall they defile themselves any 
more with their idols, nor with their detestable 
things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I 
will save them out of all their dwelling places, where- 
in they have sinned, and I will cleanse them; so shall 
they be my people, and I will be their God. And 
my servant David shall be king over them; and they 
shall all have one shepherd: they shall also walk 
in my judgments and observe my statutes, and do 
them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have 
given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers 
dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, they, and their 
children, and their children’s children, for ever: and 
David my servant shall be their prince for ever. 
Moreover, I will make a covenant of peace with 
them: and I will place them, and multiply them, 
and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for 
evermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them; 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 155 


and I will be their God, and they shall be my peo- 
ple. And the nations shall know that I am the 
Lord that sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall 
be in the midst of them for evermore.” (Ezek. 37: 
21-28.) 

Observe several simple things as to this Messianic 
prophecy. It is clothed in terms descriptive of the 
return from exile and of prosperity in the Promised 
Land and is predictive of these future blessings. 
But it cannot be limited to them. Nor does it have 
to do mainly with these national, temporal and 
earthly conditions. “My servant David shall be 
king over them; and they shall have one shepherd.” 
“David my servant shall be their prince for ever.” 
These statements apply to no pre-Christian age or 
state. David means Christ; just as Elijah in Mal- 
achi 4: 5, means John the Baptist. He is the good 
shepherd and also the “one shepherd.” (Cf. Jno. 10: 
14-16.) And under his kingship and shepherding 
tribal and kingdom, as well as racial, distinctions 
disappear. The “covenant of peace” is the “new 
covenant” or the gospel. The “tabernacle” (or 
“sanctuary”) stands for the spiritual presence of 
God, spirtual worship, the gospel of salvation for 
both the Jews and Gentiles, as it does in Amos 9: 
11. James in Acts 15: 16 gives it this meaning. To 
look for a meaning for this prophecy of Ezekiel other 
than what took place in the return from exile and in 
the first coming of Christ and what is taking place 
in the present Christian age is unfortunate. It 
blinds the eyes to the present power and glory of the 
gospel. It makes Christians idle dreamers, fever- 
ishly looking for what God has not promised. 


156 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


We must here discontinue comments on passages 
of this kind. If the reader desires to investigate 
others the following are commended, some of which 
are specified in the New Testament as fulfilled: Isa. 
Bib OTs LtS 1-9 :.59s 20) 21" 60 e492 ae 
12; 66: 10-16; Ezek. 34: 11-31; Joel 2: 28-32; Amos 
9: 11; Micah 4: 1-8; 5: 1-5; Hab. 2: 14; Zeph. 3: 
13-20; Zech. 2: 10-13; 8: 3; 9: 9; 13: 1, 6, 7. 

It is the belief of the writer that all the passages 
here discussed and cited refer to Israel’s return from 
captivity and life in their own land and to Christ’s 
first advent and the Christian age, and not at all 
to his second coming nor any condition on earth 
after his second coming. In fact, he is not con- 
vinced that any Scriptures of the Old Testament 
predict his second coming. The forecasting of that 
glorious event was reserved for a later date; it was 
revealed in the time of the New Testament, after 
the first coming of Christ, when the foretelling of it 
was needed and could be appreciated. Why tell of 
the second coming of Christ, before he had come 
the first time, to a nation and a world that would 
not understand the prophecies of his first coming? 
Divine revelation is not guilty of this blunder. 

4. A fourth difficulty is met with in certain pas- 
sages that seem to be against the views of the king- 
dom heretofore set forth. 

This difficulty, or this class of difficulties, arises 
from an apparent or superficial, not the real, inter- 
pretation of the Scripture. The passages to be 
considered fall into four groups: (1) Those that 
speak of the kingdom as having a beginning in his- 
tory since there were true worshipers in the earth; 
(2) those that represent it as future to the in- 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 157 


spired writers or speakers; (3) those in which the 
disciples of the New Testament are considered as 
not in the kingdom; (4) those that describe the 
kingdom to Israel as a nation. 

(1) “And in the days of these kings shall the God 
of heavens set up a kingdom.” (Dan. 2: 44.) 

It has been said in a former chapter that the 
kingdom of God began on earth when the first true 
worshiper, Abel, brought an “excellent sacrifice” 
to God. (Cf. Heb. 11: 4.) How then could it be 
“set up” at a later date? But there is no need to 
understand “set up” to mean an absolute beginning. 
We can think of the stages of progress in the king- 
dom. Daniel predicts a period of great advance- 
ment for it, namely, the time of the New Testament, 
compared with which former periods were not to be 
thought of. Consider that the Holy Spirit is spoken 
of in some passages as if he had not been in 
the world before the day of Pentecost, which, of 
course, is not true. (John 7: 39; 16: 7; Acts 1: 8.) 
But his coming on that day was so signal and his 
presence in the world from that time on was to be so 
potent that these passages seem to represent him 
as then coming into the world for the first time. It 
is relatively true, but, of course, not absolutely true, 
that democracy began with the Declaration of In- 
dependence by the colonies of America. The world 
had experienced flashes of it before but then it began 
in earnest to take the earth. Thus, too, did the 
kingdom of God begin in the time of the New Testa- 
ment. So Paul explains to his philosophic hearers 
at Athens: “The times of ignorance therefore God 
overlooked (which does not mean that he took no 
account of men’s sins, but that he did not send forth 


158 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


a universal call for repentance); but now he com- 
mandeth men that they should all everywhere re- 
pent.” (Acts 17: 30.) 

“Upon this rock I will build my church; and the 
gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 
16: 18.) 

It seems that in this place church means the same 
as kingdom. But we should not understand “will 
build” to mean a future beginning to build, but ra- 
ther a continuing to build. Jesus is thinking of 
the foundation of his church, or kingdom, which is 
never to cease to be, not of the date of its origin. 
An American statesman might say: “We will build 
our democracy on the bed-rock of liberty.” He 
would not thereby imply that our democracy is not 
now in existence. 

One may consider as other passages of this class 
Luke 12: 32; 19: 12; Acts 1: 6, 7. 

(2) “Through many tribulations we must enter 
into the kingdom of God.” (Acts 14: 22.) 

Paul is here thinking of the kingdom in its future 
eternal glory, not as beginning in the future. Peter 
has the same conception exactly: “Thus shall be 
richly supplied unto you the entrance into the eter- 
nal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” 
(2 Peter 1: 11.) Both Paul and Peter consider 
those to whom they speak and write as saved and in 
the kingdom. But they are now in that part of the 
kingdom which is on earth; they are to be in that 
part of it which is in heaven. In like manner Paul 
thinks of redemption as future: “In whom ye were 
sealed unto the day of redemption.” (Eph. 4: 30.) 
But are not the Ephesians already saved or re- 
deemed? To be sure, they are. But they are yet 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 159 


to experience the final consummation of it, the hope 
of which Paul holds before them. 

Other passages of this class are 2 Thess. 1: 5; 2 
Tim. 4: 1, 18; James 2: 5; Matt. 19: 28; Luke 17: 
Bee beh Ole 229 18, 

(3) Some passages already cited belong to the 
third group also. Four additional ones will suffice. 

“Except your righteousness shall exceed the right- 
eousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no 
wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 5: 
20.) Jesus is speaking to his disciples. If they are 
already in the kingdom, why does he raise the pos- 
sibility of their not being permitted to enter into 
it? There is a simple reason. He wanted to make 
it plain that such lives as the scribes and Pharisees 
were living had no place in his kingdom. So he 
said again to his disciples: “Except ye turn and be- 
come as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into 
the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 18: 3.) They are 
in the kingdom, but the ambitious spirit that now 
possesses them has no place in the kingdom. This 
is easily seen to be the meaning when we make al- 
lowance for the emphatic language that Jesus would 
naturally use to meet the demands of the situation 
that confronted him or to get his ideas “across” to 
men of such moral lack and spiritual obtuseness as 
he had to deal with. 

Matthew 11: 11, 12 seems to consider John the 
Baptist as not in the kingdom, but there is another 
and a better interpretation of these verses. Jesus is 
warning the disciples against ambition. “He that 
is but little in the kingdom is greater than he” should 
not suggest that John is not in the kingdom, but 
should be understood as we understand: ‘“Whoso- 


160 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


ever therefore shall humble himself as this little 
child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of 
heaven.” (Matt. 18: 4.) Jesus used paradoxical 
statements of this kind often. (Cf. Matt. 16: 25; 
19: 30; 28: 11; Luke 9: 48.) 

It is clear to any one that considers the context 
that Matthew 6: 33 does not command the disciples 
to “seek” to enter into the kingdom but to advance 
it. 

(4) As examples of the fourth group I cite two 
peculiar passages. 

“The sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into 
outer darkness.” (Matt. 8: 12.) The meaning is 
that the Jews as a nation are to be rejected. They 
are “sons of the kingdom” in the sense of being 
God’s chosen or special people. The context shows 
that Jesus is predicting the acceptance of the gos- 
pel by the Gentiles and its rejection by the Jews 
and their consequent rejection by God. “The king- 
dom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall 
be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits there- 
of.” (Matt. 21: 43.) This passage has the same 
meaning exactly as the one just explained. ‘A na- 
tion” signifies in general the Gentiles. The Jews had 
or possessed the kingdom in the same sense in which 
they were the “sons of the kingdom,” that is, God’s 
chosen people. 

I may say frankly that the interpretations of dif- 
ficult passages here offered are intended for those 
who have spiritual insight, who do not think me- 
chanically, who are not slaves of words, who appre- 
ciate the “invisible things” of God, who can dis- 
tinguish between the building and the scaffolding, 
between a picture and the frame, between the ker- 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 161 


nel and the shell, between the grain and the chaff, 
between the corn and the husk. 

dD. A fifth and final difficulty is the presence of 
evil in the world. 

How can Christ be reigning when sin is power- 
ful and persistent in men and in society? This fact 
staggers many. They take refuge in the view that 
Christ is not now on the throne, and will not be 
until every vestige of sin is eliminated from human 
life and society. So an honored brother says: 
“Christ is not a king actually yet, though he is a 
king in expectation of the throne. At the present 
time, he is a king in exile, and he is just as truly in 
exile from the earth as Napoleon was in exile, and 
as the king of Belgium was an exile from his own 
kingdom during the Great War.” 

Now, all informed students of the Bible know 
that the fact of sin is a great mystery. Why did 
God permit it to enter and mar his beautiful world? 
Why does he permit it to remain here? Why does 
it exist at all in his universe? Does the presence of 
sin in God’s creation argue the weakness of God 
or push him off his throne? Does it keep him from 
being supreme over his universe or deprive him for 
one moment of his actual kingship? We dare not 
so reason. And we should not so reason as to Christ. 
He is not in exile. Who had power to send him into 
exile? He said he laid down his life of his own 
choice and was not forced to do it. (Cf. John 10: 
18.) He ascended from the Mount of Olives be- 
cause he chose to do so, not because he was ban- 
ished from the earth. And now for a time he is 
absent from us, not because he is weak, not because 
he is held as a prisoner somewhere else, not because 


162 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


there is any power on earth or in hell that prevents 
him from being here, but because in his wisdom he 
willed not to be here. 

As to this problem of evil in the world and its 
relation to the reign of Christ two simple observa- 
tions will be found to be elucidating: (1) Christ is 
stronger than sin; (2) but his method of exercis- 
ing his power is not the elimination of Satan from 
the world nor the eradication of evil all at once. 

Christ is stronger than sin. This is the same as 
saying Christ is stronger than Satan. The Bible 
considers the Devil to be the source and ruler of all 
evil beings and forces. But it represents Christ as 
overcoming the Devil and destroying his kingdom. 
His very mission to the world had this as its objec- 
tive. “To this end was the Son of God manifested, 
that he might destroy the works of the devil.” (1 
John 3: 8.) 

There are three Scriptures that show undoubt- 
edly that Jesus when on earth was destroying the 
power of Satan. “I beheld Satan fallen as light- 
ning from heaven.” (Luke 10: 19.) This does not 
refer to the origin of Satan, but to the disrupting 
of his power as a result of the ministry of the “sev- 
enty,’ as the context shows. They had cast out 
demons, Satan’s subjects, by the name of Christ. 
“When the strong man fully armed guardeth his 
own court, his goods are in peace: but when a 
stronger than he shall come upon him, and over- 
come him, he taketh from him his whole armor 
wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.” (Luke 
11: 21, 22. Cf. Mark 3: 27; Matt. 12: 29.) Jesus 
describes Satan as a strong man, but counts himself 
stronger and claims that he is despoiling him of his 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 163 


goods. He represents himself as binding Satan. 
This is very striking and significant and should be 
earnestly considered. “Now shall the prince of this 
world be cast out.” (John 12: 31.) Jesus is reveal- 
ing the power of his death on the cross. It is the 
deed preeminent by which Satan is “cast out.” 
“Prince of this world” occurs three times in John 
and always means Satan. (Cf. John 14: 30; 16: 11.) 

Now we find Jesus saying that he‘‘binds” Satan 
and again that he “casts out” Satan. What does he 
mean? That Satan is absolutely and wholly elimi- 
nated from the world? No, for Jesus says again: 
“The prince of this world cometh and hath nothing 
in me.” (John 14: 30.) 

Christ does not annihilate Satan, but binds him. 
He binds him by revealing him. “Now is the judg- 
ment of this world: now shall the prince of this 
world be cast out.” (John 12: 31.) In the death of 
Christ there is revealed the character of the world 
and the character of the evil one. The Holy Spirit 
will convict the world “of judgment, because the 
prince of this world hath been judged.” (John 
16: 11.) Christ does not kill the Devil, but he 
despoils him of his goods. His goods are human 
souls whom Christ wins to himself. While the prince 
of the world looks on he takes them from him. He 
cleanses them and makes them pure. He did this 
when he was on earth. He has been doing it more 
and more since he went away and since the com- 
ing of the Paraclete. He said he went away for this 
purpose. We ought to believe what he said. We 
ought to read the eighteen centuries of history and 
the present signs of the times to see how he has been 
doing it. Death is one of the works of the devil. 


164 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


How does Christ destroy death? By causing it not 
to be, as the poor Christian Scientists try to be- 
lieve? No, but by giving us the victory over it. 
“In the world ye have tribulation: but be of good 
cheer; I have overcome the world.” (John 16: 33.) 

One once reasoned thus: If God did not want sin 
to be and could not prevent it, he is weak; if he 
could have prevented it and did not, he is imper- 
fect. But all such reasoning is vain. In like man- 
ner those who contend that while evil is in the world 
Christ is not on his throne are fighting against the 
divine order of things. They have a zeal for God, 
but not according to knowledge. They simply re- 
fuse to accept Christ’s plan for this world which 
is already revealed in the Bible, in providence and 
in history. 

Christ reigns in the world as the sun reigns in 
the heavens. There is also night. But who ean say 
how dark and cold and how long the night would 
have been had not the “Sun of Righteousness 
arisen with healing in his wings’? Not here, but 
over there, where there is no night, shall all the 
“shadows flee away.” 


DHE RETURN OF THE KING 


Christ is coming! Let creation 

Bid her groans and travail cease; 
Let the glorious proclamation 

Hope restore and faith increase. 


Long thine exiles have been pining, 
Far from rest and home and thee; 

But in heavenly vestures shining, 
Soon they shall thy glory see. 


With that “blessed hope” before us, 
Let no harp remain unstrung; 

Let the mighty advent chorus 
Onward roll from tongue to tongue. 


CHAPTER VII 


THE RETURN OF THE KING 


Christianity has a history. It is subject to the 
law of development. It came down from the sky, 
but it did not drop down all at once. It is a revela- 
tion, but a revelation that has had vital connection 
with human experience. It has had a place in and 
a relation to the onward march of the world’s events. 
It is like a river. It is, as the poet has said, the 
“river of salvation.” With its source in the moun- 
tains of God’s love and wisdom it has moved on 
through the ages, increasing in mass and momentum 
by means of many tributaries, whose waters fall 
from the clouds of divine providence and power. 
Christianity is the potency, wisdom and love of God 
manifest in human affairs. “History is philosophy 
teaching by example,’ and much more. It is God 
speaking to mankind through the fixed laws of na- 
ture and also by special providences of grace, in 
which is revealed his fixed purpose to bless and 
save the world. 

Christianity lays hold of the present as well as 
the past. It has a message for the present age. It 
is not antiquated. It is not buried in the past. It 
lives. It has vital breath. In truth, Christianity 
is the only thing in the world to-day that has power. © 
Everything else in which civilization trusted has 
proved to be weak. 


.[ 167 ] 


168 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


But Christianity has a future also. It has a for- 
ward look. It always did lay hold of the future. It 
is a religion of prophets and seers, of visions and 
dreams, of hopes and expectations, of prophecies 
and fulfillments. It is the only system in the his- 
tory of the world, religious or secular, that has been 
able to forecast the future. The eyes of all others, 
than the prophets of God, are veiled when they try 
to see the things that are to be. 

In the long centuries of the pre-Christian age 
there were “fore-gleams” of a better day. All de- 


__vout souls, in their ordeals of trouble, consoled 


themselves with this blessed hope. From Moses on 
the men of God spoke of the “Coming One.” The 
Messianic hope was a golden thread running through 
all Hebrew history. In the fulness of time he came, 
and in a few years he finished his mission and re- 
turned to his heavenly glory. But he left us with 
the definite and well-founded hope that he will re- 
turn. 

The doctrine of the Second Advent of Christ is 
fundamental in Christianity. Those who reject it, 
belittle it, or explain it away, are infidels. They 
deny the faith. If Christ is not to come a second 
time, half of the value, or more, of his first com- 
ing is taken away, and the world is moving on in 
darkness, as a ship that has lost its course in a 
storm and is without compass or captain or even 
the sight of a star. And if we know not whither we 
are going, the lessons of history are uncertain. If 
the light, that we think is light, be darkness, how 
great is the darkness. We need to come back to, 
or to stand firmly by, the “faith which was once 
for all delivered unto the saints.” The first Chris- 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 169 


tians believed in a personal, visible and glorious re- 
turn of Christ to this earth. The thought of it 
thrilled their souls. They lived in the glowing in- 
spiration of it. 

Jesus came the first time. It was a real com- 
ing. He fulfilled literally many prophecies, prophe- 
cies that were to be understood literally. He will 
fulfill again literally the prophecies of his second 
coming, such as are to be understood literally. 

Let us renew our thought on these simple propo- 
sitions: Jesus came into the world; he was in the 
world in person and in the flesh for thirty-three 
years, as he had not been in it before; then he went 
away; he has not been in the world for more than 
eighteen hundred years as he was in it for thirty- 
three years; he is not here as he was here; he will 
come again in like manner as he went away, that is, 
personally and visibly and gloriously, as the disci- 
ples saw him ascend from the Mount of Olives. 

When, therefore, a professor of note answers the 
question, “Will Christ come again?” by asking, 
“When did he ever go away?” we are shocked with 
his light and worldly manner of dealing with a vital 
matter of faith. The assumption that there are 
only two ways of interpreting the Bible on the sub- 
ject of the return of Christ, namely, the premillen- 
nial method, on the one hand, and a so-called scien- 
tific method on the other, which, in fact, denies his 
second coming, is gratuitous. It is a subtle hiding of 
the issue that does not belong to straightforward 
scholarship. Does he not know that the great major- 
ity of orthodox Christians are postmillennialists, that 
they believe in the personal and visible return of 
Christ, as truly as do the premillennialists, and that 


170 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


they also apply the scientific and historical method 
to the interpretation of the Bible? Serious suspi- 
cions are aroused against what is called “sacred lit- 
erature’ when we find infidelity clothed in the showy 
garments of the scientific method and adorned with 
the bright colors of historical criticism. If I had 
to choose between his theory and the one he argues 
against, I would not know which to take. I thank 
God I am privileged to reject both. We do not have 
to choose between scientific infidelity, which be- 
heves little or nothing, and unscientific faith, which 
believes so many things that are not true. Scien- 
tific faith is possible. It always has been. It is the 
only true faith. I am not willing to let unbelief 
steal the noble words, science and history, or to mar 
their meaning. 

Jesus himself foretold his return and did it in a 
way that was, as we shall see when we look into the 
matter, most natural. It does not have artificial but 
vital connection with his teaching and mission. It 
is not something outward and foreign that is intro- 
duced into his plan of redemption, but something 
inward and essential that becomes manifest as it 
develops. 

As is natural, therefore, Jesus did not speak of his 
second coming until toward the close of his minis- 
try. Why should he teach men of his second com- 
ing before they have time to realize something of the 
meaning of his first coming? After it became neces- 
sary for Jesus to tell his disciples of his death and 
departure from the world, which was about six 
months from the close of his ministry, after that and 
not before, as was natural, he began also to tell them 
of his return. (Cf. Matt. 16: 21.) As was also 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 171 


natural, the nearer to the end he came the more he 
said about it. 

Barring Luke 12: 35-48, where Jesus is speaking, 
it seems, of the finishing of his earthly mission, his 
first definite statement as to his return I find to be 
in Luke 17: 24-37, where he says his coming will be 
like the lightning that lightens up the whole sky, 
like the flood in Noah’s day and like the raining 
of fire and brimstone upon Sodom. His next clear 
teaching on the subject, uttered soon after, is the 
parable of the pounds. (Luke 19: 11-27.) Then 
comes the Passion Week in which he spoke much 
about it. In the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth 
chapters of Matthew he answers at length the three 
questions of his disciples: when Jerusalem would 
be destroyed, when he would come again, and when 
the age would end. (Cf. Mark 13: 1-37; Luke 21: 
5-36.) Most of what he says is in answer to the 
second question. But Jesus seems to speak as know- 
ing that his coming and the end of the age would 
happen at the same time. He repeats in Matthew 
some thoughts that are recorded in Luke as uttered 
previously. He recounts the signs of his coming, 
or the events that shall precede his coming, and de- 
scribes the situation of the world when he comes 
and the catastrophic events that will be coincident 
with his coming. He enforces his command to 
“watch” by the illustration of a thief coming at the 
time when he is not expected, an illustration that 
made a deep impression on the apostles (Cf. 2 Peter 
3: 10; Rev. 3: 3; 16: 15; 1 Thess. 5: 4, 5), and by 
the parables of the Ten Virgins and of the Talents. 
In concluding he describes the judgment of the 
nations when he returns “sitting on the throne of 


172 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


his glory.” They shall be gathered before him and 
be separated into two classes, as “the shepherd sepa- 
rateth the sheep from the goats,” the one to be 
blessed, the other to be cursed. 

He seems to refer to his second coming in a covert 
saying at the institution of the Lord’s Supper. (Luke 
22: 18.) And Paul says that in its observance we 
“proclaim the Lord’s death till he come.” (1 Cor. 11: 
26.) I think we may justly conclude, therefore, 
that as the Passover was both commemorative of 
the deliverance from Egypt and prophetic of the 
coming of the Lamb of God who should take away 
the sin of the world, so Jesus, supplanting the old 
covenant with the new made the supper a memorial 
of his death and also a prophecy of his return. 

After his resurrection and after his appearances 
during a period of forty days, in which he spoke to 
the disciples of “the things concerning the kingdom 
of God,” and once at least of the specific subject of 
his return (John 21: 22), he “was taken up; and a 
cloud received him out of their sight.” (Acts 1: 9.) 
And then, “while they were looking steadfastly into 
heaven as he went, behold two men stood by them 
in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Gali- 
lee, why stand ye looking into heaven? this Jesus, 
which was received up from you into heaven, shall 
so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into 
heaven.” (Acts 1: 10, 11.) 

What now was the effect upon the apostles of the 
many statements of Jesus and of the one of the 
“two men”? Did these statements “sink in’? Did 
the disciples believe them? Did they give to the 
doctrine the important place in their thought, 
preaching and general outlook upon the future that 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 173 


it deserved? We shall see that they did. Paul, too, 
had the same viewpoint. The idea of the return of 
Christ was fundamental in his Christology and es- 
chatology. It was, so to speak, in his system and 
was ever expressing itself. In their writings it is 
not introduced in a forced or artificial way but it is 
there naturally; it is a vital part of the body of their 
faith. Take it out and it will bleed to death. 

We find the method of the apostles was the same 
as that of Jesus. They preached the first coming of 
Christ first and then, when that was accepted, his 
second coming. They made it prominent in their 
message to believers but gave it a small place in 
their message to the unsaved. 

Peter on the day of Pentecost said nothing about 
Christ’s second coming. He wanted to convince his 
unbelieving hearers that the Messiah had come the 
first time. But soon after that, when addressing a 
multitude of believers and unbelievers in the tem- 
ple, he made a passing reference to it. (Acts 3: 21.) 
He knew his business too well to dwell at length 
upon the subject before that mixed audience. 

But in his epistles, where he writes to believers 
only, he dwells upon it as an inspiring hope (1 Pet. 
1: 7, 18); as a doctrine that mockers reject (2 Pet. 
3: 4); asa “day of judgment and destruction of un- 
godly men” (3: 7); as a day of the cleansing by fire 
and renewal of the universe, that will “come as a 
thief; in which the heavens will pass away with a 
great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with 
fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are 
therein shall be burned up” (38: 10-12); and as a 
day whose coming we should be “looking for and 
earnestly desiring.” (38: 12.) 


174 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


John writes as one who knows that the expecta- 
tion of the return of Christ was in the mind of all 
believers. His one reference in his gospel to the 
final coming of Christ shows this. (John 21: 22, 23.) 
Statements elsewhere of a coming of Christ refer to 
other kinds of coming, to his coming in the ordeal 
of death, on the day of Pentecost, and in the fellow- 
ship of love. (Cf. 14: 3, 18, 23.) The one reference 
in his epistles to the final coming of Christ also 
shows that he knew the subject needed neither ex- 
planation nor defense. (1 John 2: 28.) It is accepted 
as a matter of course by him and by those to whom 
he writes. 

In the Revelation God himself, the Lord God AI- 
mighty, is described three times as the one ‘“‘who is, 
and who was, and who is to come.” (Rev. 1: 4, 8; 
4: 8.) We are not to apply this language to Christ, 
as is often done. It refers clearly and especially to 
the First Person of the Trinity, as the context shows; 
this, however, does not require that the thought of 
the Second Person is to be excluded. The basis for 
this description of God is the name God gave to 
himself when he appeared to Moses at the burning 
bush, “I am that I am,” which also was the basis for 
Israel’s national name for God, Jehovah or Yahveh, 
the essential idea of which is self-existence. But it 
is significant that in the description before us the 
past and present tenses of the verb to be are used, 
but not the future tense of it. God is not described 
as the one that is to be, but the one that is to come 
or the one that comes. The suggestion is obvious. 
God is an ever-coming God. He is ever revealing 
himself in history. He is ever approaching us in 
the events of the world. They are his providences. 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 175 


This is a very valuable addition to our conception 
of God. The names, titles and descriptions of the 
Persons of the Trinity should be carefully scrutin- 
ized. Subjecting them to reverent study will al- 
ways yield results. The revelation in Christ reacts 
upon our knowledge of the divine character to in- 
crease it. We find here one key to the interpreta- 
tion of the book of Revelation; without which not 
all its mysteries and treasures can be unlocked. 

Accordingly Christ, through whom God mediates 
all things, often declares himself to be coming. He 
comes for judgment and discipline (2: 5, 16; 3: 3; 
16: 15), for deliverance (2: 25; 3: 11), for fellow- 
ship. (3: 20.) He is an ever-coming, ever-approach- 
ing, ever-arriving one. But these special prelimi- 
nary comings of Christ are real and are made possi- 
ble only by virtue of his one great consummate 
coming, to which they are necessarily and vitally re- 
lated. They would have no meaning if this were 
not to be. Here we have another key to the inter- 
pretation of Revelation. In the salutation in the 
first chapter the final coming of Christ is affirmed 
thus: “Behold, he cometh with the clouds; and 
every eye shall see him, and they that pierced him; 
and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over him.” 
(1: 7.) The language resembles that of Matthew 
24: 30. At the close of the prophecy Christ gives 
as his last word to men the precious promise: “Be- 
hold I come quickly.” (22: 20.) This certainly re- 
fers to his final coming, and so also, quite certainly, 
do the other two affirmations in the same words of 
this last chapter. (22: 7, 12.) It may be that 16: 
15 belongs also to this class of passages, rather than 
in the list above where it is placed. 


176 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


We may say then that the coming of Christ, both 
subsidiary and final, is a note that rings clear and 
triumphant throughout the book of Revelation. It 
is built on this tone; it is pitched to this key. 

Jude, like Peter, regards the return of Christ as” 
a “mercy” to be looked for. (Verse 21.) James 
counts it a hope of reward, like a farmer’s expecta- 
tion of a crop, that should create patience. (5: 7.) 
The author of Hebrews states clearly that Christ 
“shall appear a second time apart from sin, to them 
that wait for him, unto salvation” (9: 28); he ex- 
horts his readers to “love and good works,” in as 
much as they “see the day drawing nigh” (10: 25); 
and, like James, on the basis of this promised “‘re- 
compense of reward” he urges patience. (101)36)37) 

We come now to consider the prominence Paul 
gives to the second coming of Christ. This inter- 
ests us greatly, as does his teaching concerning the 
Holy Spirit and on many other subjects, since he 
was hot one of the first apostles and got his knowl- 
edge of the gospel without human aid. (Cf. Gal. 1: 
11,12.) Paul affirms once and Suggests once that he 
spoke by special revelation on this subject. (1 Thess. 
or Gorn cl bibl ys tas impossible, therefore, 
for a devout believer not to have the greatest re- 
spect for what Paul says. I confess that I often 
have a feeling of mingled amusement and chagrin 
when I hear budding theologians, some of whom 
have sufficient years to their credit, and certain am- 
bitious women also, speak slightingly of the apostle 
Paul. They seem to me to be not only dull but pro- 
fane critics. Since they do not take pains even to 
learn what Paul says, much less to understand him, 
but show a curious delight in pointing out what 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 177 


they elect to count his mistakes, I cannot but liken 
them to a famous infidel who was fond of holding 
forth on the “mistakes of Moses.” It ought not to 
take us very long to choose between Moses and Bob 
Ingersoll and between Paul and his half-baked crit- 
ics. What is the matter with Paul? Well, unfortu- 
nately (?) he got in the way of high-minded and 
headstrong men and women and they don’t like it. 
I am glad he did. His demerit is his merit. 

As said before, the doctrine of the second coming 
of Christ is vital in Paul’s Christology and eschatol- 
ogy. Christ is the one for whom all things exist. 
(Col. 1: 16.) He will be revealed as such at some 
future time. He will then be honored by all intelli- 
gences in the universe. His redeemed people, too, 
will then “come into their own.” They will share his 
glory. Unbelievers will be judged and sent to their 
punishment. When he comes the world will be de- 
livered from its bondage of corruption and pain and 
will be renewed. It will be the end of this age and 
the consummation of all things. It is that divine 
event, far off or close at hand, to which the whole 
creation moves. We find the doctrine, in one aspect 
or another, running through all Paul’s teaching, in 
his speeches and his writings. 

In his address at Athens he refers to the day that 
God has appointed in which he will judge the world 
by Christ. (Acts 17: 31.) In the second epistle to 
the Thessalonians he reminds them that he had, 
when he was with them, explained to them certain 
things concerning the time of the return. (2 Thess. 
2: 5.) In his first epistle he says that they “know 
perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a 
thief in the night” and that he does not need to 


178 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


_ write anything to them on that point. (1 Thess. 5: 
1, 2.) So it was Paul’s custom to teach his churches 
as to the second coming of Christ. He even re- 
ferred to it when addressing for the first time an 
audience that was mostly, if not altogether, as yet 
unbelievers. 

In the two short epistles to the Thessalonians, 
his first writings, he speaks often on the subject. In 
the first he exhorts them to live in expectation of 
Christ’s return; he.explains that those who have 
died already will not be deprived of their share in 
the great event, a matter that disturbed them, but 
that they will return with him, affirming that he has 
the Lord’s authority for so speaking (4: 15); that 
those who are living when he comes will be changed 
into the same state or condition in which they and 
Christ are; he reminds them that the “day of the 
Lord” will come as a “thief in the night” and that 
it will be “sudden destruction” to “the sons of the 
night” who “sleep”; he tells them to “comfort one 
another with these words’; and finally he wishes a 
blessing upon them at the “coming of our Lord Je- 
sus Christ.” (1 Thess. 1: 10; 3: 18; 4: 18-18; 5: 1-7, 
23.) 

In the second epistle Paul goes into the subject 
more fully, repeating somewhat of the things said 
in the first epistle and adding much that is new. 
Christ will be revealed “from heaven with the an- 
gels of his power in flaming fire’; he will render 
“vengeance to them that know not God” and “obey 
not the gospel” and will banish them from his pres- 
ence; at his coming he will be glorified in and won- 
dered at by all believers. (2 Thess. 1: 7-10.) Since 
the Thessalonians have become excited over the 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 179 


time of the return, believing that it is imminent or 
“right at hand” and are as a result in an abnormal 
condition of mind, abstaining from useful work and 
becoming busy-bodies and disorderly, he goes at 
length into this phase of the question. 

He says positively that “the day of the Lord is 
not just at hand” and proceeds to tell them that a 
certain event must come first, namely, “a falling 
away” and the coming of the “man of sin,” which, 
it seems, are two aspects of the same event. This 
“man of sin” is further described as the “son of per- 
dition,” as one that “exalts himself against all that 
is called God or that is worshiped,” as one, how- 
ever, that assumes the place of God, that “sitteth 
in the temple of God” and “setteth himself forth 
as God,’ as the “lawless one,” who when he is fully 
revealed will do the work of “Satan with all power 
and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceit of 
unrighteousness for them that perish.” At present 
this one is restrained by some power or agent of 
which the Thessalonians have knowledge, but which 
is to be “taken out of the way.” When this hap- 
pens he will be fully revealed and will have his own 
way as the “lawless one,” doing the work of “Satan 
with all power and signs and lying wonders, and 
with all deceit of unrighteousness for them that per- 
ish.” This “man of sin” or “lawless one” or one 
who “setteth himself forth as God” will continue 
until Christ comes and will then be destroyed by 
him. Though he is under a handicap his Satanic 
and subtle energy is, nevertheless, known to Paul. 
This is certainly the meaning of the statement, “the 
mystery of lawlessness doth already work.” (2 Thess. 
2: 1-12.) 


180 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


I venture this interpretation. Paul is thinking of 
an evil principle or energy that has personal em- 
bodiment or representation. So he describes it as 
the “man of sin,” the “son of perdition,” ete. It is 
already at work and is to continue until Christ 
comes, when it will be destroyed. Paul thinks also 
of the restraining influence or power as both imper- 
sonal and personal. (Cf. verses 6 and 7.) It, too, is 
a power or principle that has personal embodiment 
or representation. The evil principle is that spirit 
of anti-christ that has manifested itself preemi- 
nently in the Catholic Church. Here is a power 
that claims to be God’s power but ever exalts itself 
against him. This evil spirit, in the form of Juda- 
ism, was at work when Paul wrote. Catholicism is 
in part Judaism transplanted in Roman paganism. 
A suggestive fact is that Catholicism gives Peter the 
primacy over Paul as did the Judaic prejudices in 
the first churches. Not until the Reformation was 
Paul given his proper place in Christendom and that 
only among Protestants. It is impossible for him 
to have it in Catholicism which is slightly Christian, 
but mainly Judaic and pagan. Notice that Paul 
connects the “falling away” with the revealing of 
the “man of sin” and that Jesus also foretold the 
defection of many. (Matt. 24: 10-12.) The power 
that “restraineth now” was the Roman government, 
which was, when Paul wrote, a check upon the dia- 
bolical spirit and power of Judaism which also 
claimed to represent God but was wholly against 
him. Paul saw that the restraint that the Roman 
government was exercising would cease, “be taken 
out of the way,” and then “hell would break loose.” 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 181 


Dr. David Smith has in the main the same view 
(Cf. Life and Letters of St. Paul, p. 173f). 

But whether this interpretation is correct or not, 
we see that Paul speaks as a prophet. He knows 
what he is talking about. He is imparting a revela- 
tion. God gave him eyes with which to see the fu- 
ture at least in dim outline. He knew that he saw 
what he saw. He said that the day of Christ was 
not then just at hand. He rebuked the Thessalon- 
ians for letting the expectation of Christ’s return 
excite their minds and turn them aside from the 
performance of their normal duties. It is very 
strange that some writers, who attempt to explain 
Paul’s attitude to Christ’s second coming, do not 
pay attention to what Paul says in his earliest writ- 
ings. But this is the only starting point for those 
who really want to understand Paul on this vital 
subject. 

Much of what Paul says in his first epistle to the 
Corinthians is vitally related to the final coming of 
Christ. He commends them thus: “Ye come behind 
in no gift; waiting for the revelation of our Lord 
Jesus Christ; who shall also confirm you unto the 
end, that ye be unreprovable in the day of our Lord 
Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor. 1: 7, 8.) He tells them to sus- 
pend their own judgments “until the Lord come,” 
who will then bring all things to light and will give 
to every man his due. (1 Cor. 4: 5.) It should be 
said here that the reference to “the distress that is 
upon us’ (1 Cor. 7: 26) is not a reference to the 
second coming. It is impossible that Paul should 
speak of the “blessed hope” (Tit. 2: 13) as an “im- 
pending distress.” Nor would he have allowed the 
expectation of the return to disrupt the social or- 


182 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


der, which, as we have seen, he did not allow in the 
case of the Thessalonians. ‘The distress that is 
upon us” must be understood as applying to some- 
thing else. In fact, it is only one who is bent on 
finding mistakes in Paul, and is hard pressed for an 
argument, that would think of affirming that it re- 
fers to the second coming. 

In explaining that the Lord’s Supper is a memo- 
rial of Christ’s death Paul points out that it is to be 
repeated “till he come.” (1 Cor. 11: 26.) That is, 
the Lord’s Supper in addition to being a memorial, 
is also a prophecy. As those devout Jews who ate 
the Passover could look both backward to deliver- 
ance from Egypt and forward to the Lamb of God 
that would deliver his people from sin, so we in this 
ordinance the seal of the new covenant, much more 
frequently observed, look backward to our own de- 
liverance from sin and also forward to that great 
event when the whole creation shall be “delivered 
from the bondage of corruption.” (Rom. 8:21.) 

In the extended discussion of the resurrection in 
the fifteenth chapter the return of Christ, though 
not dwelt upon, is a fundamental idea. The resur- 
rection life is for those who are alive when Christ 
comes, as well as for those who die before he comes. 
Accordingly, the change of the bodies of living be- 
lievers into resurrection bodies will take place when 
he comes, “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.” 
(1 Cor. 15: 20-23, 51, 52.) The change that is 
wrought “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye” 
refers, I think, to the same experience that is de- 
scribed in 1 Thess. 4: 17 by the words, ‘‘caught up 
in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.” In both 
places, it seems, Paul is speaking from special reve- 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 183 


lation. In Thessalonians his language is: “We say 
unto you by the word of the Lord’’; in Corinthians 
it is, “Behold, I tell you a mystery.” In the saluta- 
tion, which Paul calls attention to as being in his 
own handwriting, he affirms in a peculiar and force- 
ful expression the coming of Christ. (1 Cor. 16: 22.) 

In Second Corinthians we have an explanation of 
how death may be thought of as a coming of Christ. 
It is an experience in which we enter into the pres- 
ence of Christ, become “at home with the Lord.” 
(2 Cor. 5: 1-8.) Christ’s coming to us and our go- 
ing to him are identical conceptions when it is con- 
sidered that in this journey space is no item. 

While the return of Christ is not mentioned in 
Rom. 8: 18-23, the thought of it certainly underlies 
this remarkable prophetic utterance. As in 1 Cor. 
15: 23, 51-57, so here Paul is speaking of that glori- 
ous future event in which all history is to find its 
consummation and meaning, and which has essential 
connection with the final coming of Christ. 

To the Philippians Paul expresses his confidence 
that “he who began a good work in you will perfect 
it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1: 6), 
which must signify either the day of their death or 
the day of Christ’s return. Paul does not say which 
and he quite certainly does not know, but he is liv- 
ing in expectation of the return, as he and all be- 
hevers are commanded to do, and as he affirms that 
he and the Philippians are doing. (Phil. 3: 20. Cf. 
Mark 138: 37.) He says to them also that “the Lord 
is at hand” (Phil. 4: 5); in which case he must mean 
spiritual presence. He wants the Philippians to 
realize Christ in their hearts. 


184 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


Paul charges Timothy to “keep the command- 
ment, without spot, without reproach, until the ap- 
pearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Tim. 6: 14.) 
In this case, Paul is thinking of the final coming 
of Christ only. The language quoted and context 
plainly show it. He wants Timothy to live and 
labor believing that Christ might come the second 
time while he was alive. Paul did not know that 
he would not. The only mind for Christians to 
have as to the return of Christ is one of expecta- 
tion. Christ commanded it. Paul hasit. He wants 
Timothy to have it. 

He speaks with a like purpose to Titus. “The 
grace of God hath appeared to all men, bringing sal- 
vation, instructing us to the intent that, denying 
ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live sob- 
erly and righteously and godly in this present world; 
looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the 
glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ.” 
(Tit. 2: 11-13.) Paul includes himself in the num- 
ber of those who are instructed to live in expectation 
of Christ’s return. 

Twice in his second letter to Timothy Paul re- 
fers to “that day,” once in relation to himself, and 
once in relation to Onesiphorus. (2 Tim. 1: 12, 18.) 
As in Phil. 1: 6 it must here signify either the day 
of death or the day of Christ’s return. When he be- 
lieves that the end of his life on earth 1s near Paul 
has the same expectant attitude toward the final 
coming of Christ that he has had. It may come be- 
fore Onesiphorus dies and even before he himself 
dies, though “the time of his departure is come.” 
(2 Tim. 4:6.) The return of Christ is so prominent 
and vivid in his thinking that he delivers a charge 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 185 


to Timothy in view of it. “I charge thee in the 
sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge 
the living and the dead, and by his appearing and 
his kingdom: preach the word.” (2 Tim. 4: 1, 2.) The 
conviction of the final coming of Christ is a stimulus 
to preaching the gospel, as the very nature of the 
kingdom is, as the very character of Christ is, and 
as the very presence of God is. He swears by it, 
as he does by these. 

In the above bird’s-eye view of the New Testa- 
ment teaching as to the second coming of Christ 
there is also considerable exposition. What follows, 
therefore, is much briefer than it could otherwise 
be. The rest of the discussion we develop under 
four heads: the meaning, the manner and the time 
of his coming and the mental attitude, that Chris- 
tians should have, toward his coming. 

As to the first topic we have already pointed out 
several kinds of coming that are ascribed to Christ, 
his coming to the Christian at death, his coming in 
fellowship, his coming on the day of Pentecost, his 
coming in judgment, and his final coming. We may 
add his coming in moral and _ spiritual revivals. 
Here are six kinds of coming the understanding of 
which will be of great profit. 

That Christ comes to his own at death and in 
spiritual fellowship is so obvious that I need not 
say anything further on the subject. 

That he came to his disciples on the day of Pente- 
cost is accepted by all informed believers, so far as 
I know. Jesus said, referring to that day, that he 
would not leave them as “orphans” but would come 
to them. (John 14: 18.) As the Father comes to 
all those to whom the Son comes, so the Son also 


186 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


comes to all those to whom the Holy Spirit comes. 
But I dare say that few Christians appreciate the 
meaning of the day of Pentecost and its significance 
in the kingdom. “The great and notable day of the 
Lord,” in the quotation that Peter makes from Joel, 
is the day of Pentecost, and not the day of the final 
coming of Christ, as some have imagined. Peter is 
talking to the point and they, who thus interpret 
him, are rambling. 

We have seen that Christ comes to his people for 
judgment and discipline. We may enlarge this con- 
ception and say that he comes to the world also 
for judgment. The destruction of Jerusalem has 
been cited as a case. The World War and other 
wars may be regarded as examples; in fact, all fam- 
ines, pestilences, earthquakes and revolutions may 
be so taken. It is his method to overturn and over- 
turn, to uproot and to burn up all things that hinder 
and hold back his kingdom, all lies, all prejudices, 
all customs, all traditions, all conventionalities, all 
unjust governments, all ignorance, all false knowl- 
edge, all pride, all inequalities, all cruelties, all en- 
mities, all shams, hollowness and wilfulness of in- 
dividuals, of organizations, social, ecclesiastical or 
business, and of nations and civilizations. In a lim- 
ited sense he is now making all things new. It is 
but the counterpart of what has just been said to 
add that great revivals are also the result of Christ’s 
spiritual coming, whether we think of a local or a 
national or a world awakening. It would be diffi- 
cult to think of the Reformation, or of the great re- 
vivals of Wesley, Whitefield and Moody, or of the 
modern missionary movement from Carey and Jud- 
son down to the present day as other than the com- 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 187 


ing of Christ into the hearts of men. It would be 
absurd to attempt to explain in any other way these 
mighty demonstrations of divine power and grace. 
“My Father worketh even until now and I work,” 
said Jesus. (John 5: 17.) 

But these five ways of his coming are not all. 
There is another, his final, personal coming. The 
frequent Greek word for the final coming of Christ, 
marousia, means literally presence, the implied 
thought of which is that he will be personally pres- 
ent as he is now personally absent. (Cf. 1 Thess. 4: 
$57) 2 Thess. 2: 1, 85 Jas. 6507; (2) Pet. 3:4.) | He 
will come as he went away. (Acts1: 11.) It wasa 
personal, visible departure. Jt will be a personal, 
visible, bodily return. I notice, however, that even 
premillennialists, such as are well informed, though 
they habitually think and speak of the millennium 
in terms of this material world, do not affirm that 
Christ will come back in a material body. (Cf. Doc- 
trinal Statement by Christian Fundamentals Asso- 
ciation, Denver, 1921.) But his people will see him, 
and his enemies also will see him. His glory will 
girdle the earth. (Matt. 24: 27.) It is the one 
consummate coming, as related to which all others 
are but subsidiary, and without which they would 
have little or no value. 

What will be the manner of his coming? I have 
just stated it in part. He will come in the air or 
down from the clouds. His angels will accompany 
him and so will the saints also. (Matt. 24: 30, 31; 
1 Thess. 3: 13; 4: 14.) He will not come as the 
sin-bearer, as he did the first time, ‘a man of sor- 
rows,” but as the judge of the world. (Heb. 9: 28; 
Matt. 24: 30; 25: 31-46; Luke 21: 27.) It will be 


188 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


sudden. (Matt. 24: 44; Luke 21: 35.) It will be 
attended by catastrophic physical phenomena, con- 
vulsions of nature, astronomical chaos and the burn- 
ing up of the world, after which there will emerge 
new heavens and a new earth. By water the world 
was cleansed the first time; it will be purified the 
second time by fire. (Matt. 24: 29; Luke 21: 25, 
26; 2 Thess, 1: 7; 2. Pet.'3: 7,:10-13.). The birth, 
the death and the resurrection of Christ were ac- 
companied by unusual physical phenomena, as were 
also certain marked-events in his life. Nature it- 
self, though men may not be, is sympathetic and re- 
sponsive toward its Maker. And it shall be trans- 
formed and adjusted to the requirements of a re- 
deemed and perfect humanity, as it is now suited 
to a fallen and sinful humanity. (Rom. 8: 20-23.) 

When will the final coming of Jesus be? 

Let us try to think with the greatest care and hon- 
esty on this subject. There seems to be a strange 
wilfulness as well as superficiality in some who speak 
and write about it. 

Two things we must always keep in mind. Jesus 
taught that no man knew the time; that angels did 
not know it; that he himself did not know it; that 
his coming would be as a thief in the night. As the 
power of Jesus was, in his incarnation, limited, so 
also was his knowledge limited. (Cf. Matt. 24: 36, 
43-45; 25: 13.) I have pointed out that Jesus’ il- 
lustration of the thief coming unexpectedly made 
a deep impression on the disciples; that Paul also 
knew of it. The second thing we should keep in 
mind is that Jesus recounted events that should 
precede his coming and described conditions that 
would exist when he shall come. He gave signs of 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 189 


his coming. (Cf. Matt. 24: 3-14, 23-42.) Jesus’ 
prophecy with respect to this event was therefore a 
veiled prophecy, as all true forecasting of the future 
must necessarily be. We cannot know the future as 
clearly as we know the present, and it is better that 
we do not so know it. The predictions also of Peter, 
Paul and John with regar@ to the final coming of 
Christ are veiled predictions. They saw as in a 
mirror obscurely. 

Any student of the Bible, therefore, premillennial- 
ist or postmillennialist, who so interprets the millen- 
nium and its coming as on the one hand, to excite 
us into an abnormal state of mind, into the convic- 
tion that Christ certainly will come in a few days or 
in a few years or in our life time, or, on the other 
hand, to cause us to be indifferent to his coming and 
to settle down into the conviction that he will not 
come in our age, is on the wrong track. No one can 
say it will happen in the next twenty-five years; no 
one can say it will not. No one should rob us of 
the expectant attitude toward this blessed event. 
So far all those who have taken it upon themselves 
to inform us that Christ would come at a certain 
date, or within a few years, as some have ever been 
doing and as many did after the beginning of the 
World War, have proved to be vain talkers; some 
of whom, I am glad to note, have good enough judg- 
ment now, if not a good enough conscience, to keep 
silent on the subject. 

The book of future events is a sacred book, which 
only the “Lion that is of the tribe of Judah, the Root 
of David, hath overcome to open.” (Rev. 5: 5.) 
No man is worthy to open it. But in the revelation 
of the future, that Christ gave to John on Patmos, 


190 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


the point of time of his return is concealed as it was 
in his address to the disciples on the Mount of 
Olives. Dr. A. J. Gordon suggests that though 
Christ, when in the flesh, did not know the time of 
his return, he may after his ascension, have known 
it and revealed it. (Ministry of the Spirit, p. 55.) 
But the revelation, “which God gave him to show 
unto his servants,” was a veiled revelation, as we 
have said. The time of the return is again kept 
secret. Dr. Gordon speaks of the “mystical dates” 
which he thinks some may ferret out or may already 
have ferreted out. But it did not occur to him that 
if Jesus had wanted us to know the dates he would 
have given exact figures and not symbols. He told 
his disciples the dates of several future events quite 
exactly, as for example, his death, his resurrection, 
his being on a certain mountain in Galilee to meet 
with them. It is evident that Jesus in the Revela- 
tion has the same purpose that he had when he told 
the disciples that he would come as a thief. He has 
succeeded in doing just what he purposed to do, 
namely, to “keep them guessing.” If one thinks he 
knows in this matter, where he can only guess, the 
chances are, one to a million or more, that he will 
miss it and miss it badly. If one knows he can do 
nothing but guess, this mental attitude toward a 
situation makes him the wiser. 

It is argued that certain of the signs that Jesus 
and the apostles gave require the view that the re- 
turn is imminent, that it must be in a few years at 
most. For example, Jesus said: “Ye shall hear of 
wars and rumors of wars.”’ Yes, and then he added, 
“but the end is not yet.” (Matt. 24: 6.) How many 
wars and rumors of wars must we hear of? He did 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 191 


not say. He said: “This gospel of the kingdom shall 
be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto 
all the nations; and then shall the end come.” 
(Matt. 24: 14.) But to what extent and degree 
preached? Did he mean that the gospel is simply 
to be announced to every nation? Did he mean 
they are to be evangelized only? Or did he mean 
that they are to be Christianized, or that a large 
number of Christians must be made in them before 
the return? Hedid not say. What are we to under- 
stand by nations? Every tribe and tongue or 
simply the great divisions of mankind, China, for 
example, being one nation? Jesus did not say. Then 
it is better for us not to say. 

He said: “And as were the days of Noah, so shall 
be the coming of the Son of man. For as in those 
days which were before the flood they were eating 
and drinking, marrying and giving in a marriage,” 
ete. (Matt. 24: 37-39.) But all that has been go- 
ing on for eighteen centuries and more. Jesus did 
not say how many more centuries it is to continue. 

Paul writes to Timothy: “But the Spirit saith 
expressly that in latter times some shall fall away 
from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and 
doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men 
that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as 
with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and command- 
ing to abstain from meats, which God created to be 
received with thanksgiving by them that believe 
and know the truth.” (1 Tim. 4: 1-3.) Now how 
can this be a sign that Christ is going to come in a 
few years? The sins that Paul specifies have been 
committed from the first century. Paul tells Tim- 
othy to put his people, at that time, on guard 


192 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


against them. (1 Tim. 4: 6.) “Later times” can- 
not, therefore, mean the last part of the last age of 
the world. It is now nearly four centuries since the 
Council of Trent pronounced a curse on me and all 
like me who say that marriage is better than celi- 
bacy. But Paul saw the tendency arising in his day 
to condemn marriage and other good things. The old 
version reads “latter times.” To think that this 
expression designates our times and to argue that, 
since the sins that Paul names are committed now, 
we are certainly near the end, is such consummate 
folly that I would not even mention it, were it not 
for the fact that many respectable and pious people 
are guilty of it. 

Again Paul writes to Timothy: “But know this, 
that in the last days grievous times shall come.” 
(2 Tim. 3: 1.) Then Paul goes on to describe bad 
men, such as we have now. “Therefore,” argue 
the same respectable and pious brethren, “we are in 
the last part of the last age of the world.” But 
there is nothing like that in the passage. It was 
common for the first believers to speak of the Chris- 
tian age as the last days or last times. The prophets 
of the Old Testament had visions of the last age of 
the world. The prophets of the New Testament 
understood that they had entered into that age. 
(Cf, Acts 2: 17; Heb. 1: 2- 2 Pet. 3: 37) di Pete 
20; Jude 18; 1 John 2: 18.) Paul gives a list of sins 
that men will exhibit throughout the Christian age 
and not such as will be characteristic of men only 
in the last part of the last age of the world. We 
are in the last age of the world but who can say that 
we are in the last part of the last age? Paul does 
not say anything of the kind. He is describing sin- 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 193 


ful men that were living also in his time. (2 Tim. 
3: 5.) It is high time that these misinterpreters of 
Paul use their consciences more and their skill for 
manipulating and accommodating his language less. 

Another class of interpreters, approaching the 
subject from a different standpoint, assure us that 
the coming of Christ is yet a great way off, many 
centuries. Dr. James H. Snowden, in sympathy 
with certain arguments drawn from astronomy, 
anthropology and geology, concludes that “this 
planet is a ship stocked for a long voyage” yet, in- 
deed, that the “world is only in the morning of its 
day and humanity is only in its infancy.” Accord- 
ingly he puts “the end of the world in a remote fu- 
ture.” (The Coming of the Lord, pp. 79, 81, 143.) 
He also thinks that “the man of sin” foretold by 
Paul has not yet appeared. (p. 165.) As to this 
last argument I hold that he is “dead wrong.” As 
to the scientific argument, that there are no signs 
that the earth is wearing out or that a chaos of the 
heavenly bodies is approaching, I consider it of in- 
significant value. Scientists are more to be relied 
upon when they tell us what has been, or, even, what 
may be, than when they tell us what will not be. 
The God I believe in is capable of surprising the 
scientists. Jesus said, “of that day and hour know- 
eth no one.” That includes scientists and theolo- 
gians both. 

Dr. B. H. Carroll, who does not stress scientific 
considerations as does Dr. Snowden but moral and 
social ideals that are, he thinks, yet to be realized, 
concludes that the final coming of Christ is yet far 
in the future. It is a noble conception that he pre- 
sents, but his arguments are not convincing. The 


194 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


extent to which the world is to be Christianized is 
certainly not revealed. We know that believers and 
unbelievers will be intermixed but in what ratio we 
know not. His view, like Dr. Snowden’s, that 
Paul’s “man of sin” has not yet appeared is far 
astray. (Revelation, pp. 288, 289.) Paul says the 
power of the “lawless one” was already at work 
when he was writing. (2 Thess. 2: 7.) He consid- 
ers that a “falling away” will occur when the “man 
of sin” comes upon the scene. (2 Thess. 2: 3.) Later 
Paul speaks of a defection, revealed to him by the 
Spirit, as already at hand. (1 Tim. 4: 1-6. Cf. 
Acts 20: 29, 30.) It most certainly is the same re- 
action that he foretells to the Thessalonians. Peter 
also seems to be aware of some such apostasy as 
close at hand while he was yet alive. (2 Pet. 2: 1, 
2.) Jesus foretold a defection. (Matt. 24: 10-12.) 
And John still later speaks of an apostasy as having 
already occurred and connects it with the coming of 
antichrist and the last age. (1 John 2: 18, 19.) 

Dr. Carroll works out his interpretation upon the 
theory that the kingdom of God on earth is a “vis- 
ible kingdom,” that “the Devil will not get the ma- 
jority of the human race,” that in the millennium, 
which will come before Christ’s return, “good people 
will be on top in every kind of government.” (pp. 
297, 273, 274.) But it does not seem possible to 
establish any of these positions; certainly not all of 
them. He understands the statement in the parable 
of the Talents, “after a long time the Lord of those 
servants cometh,” to signify a time yet far in the 
future to us. (p. 305, Cf. Matt. 25: 19.) This 1s; 
of course, a pure assumption. His argument to the 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 195 


effect that we are not to expect the return of Christ 
now is a fatal error. 

If all interpreters would realize that they are ever 
to expect the coming of the Lord and not to spec- 
ulate as to when he will or will not come, and that, 
when they deal in arguments that tend to change 
the attitude of “watchful waiting” into a feeling 
either of cocksureness or of indifference, they are 
doing just what Christ forbade them to do, they 
would be kept from many errors. 

The Lord will come in his own appointed time. 
He will come quickly, as he measures time. He will 
not hurry and he will not be detained. Nor will he 
linger. 

I have just read an article in which the writer 
uses the expression, “if the Lord tarries.” This ex- 
pression is often found in certain writers and speak- 
ers who have occasion to refer to the second coming 
of Christ. ) 

Is it proper to imply that Christ may tarry in re- 
gard to his second coming or indeed in regard to 
anything? Of course it depends on what we mean 
_by tarrying. The word has two distinct meanings: 
to abide and to linger, to remain in a given place for 
a purpose, and wisely, and to remain there idly, 
“killing time.” The latter meaning is the more 
common and the more appropriate. When reverent 
people speak of Christ tarrying they have the for- 
mer thought in mind, of course. But the word tarry 
is not the best word to use to express that thought. 
And if they should use another expression for the 
same idea, as “if the Lord continues to abide away,” 
they would discover that their thought, as well as 
their words, is rather weak. 


196 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


Those who use this expression in referring to the 
return of Christ have not, perhaps, considered that 
they have no right so to use it, for the simple rea- 
son that the Bible puts it in the mouth of an evil 
servant. “If that evil servant shall say in his heart, 
my Lord tarrieth,” etc. (Matt. 24: 48; Cf. Luke 12: 
45.) He used the word in the second sense as given 
above. It is the more fitting use of it. In this 
sense it signifies to while away the time, to spend 
the time to no purpose. The servant would express 
his impatience with his Lord. This is the natural 
and proper suggestion that accompanies the word. 
If one shrinks from this thought he should not use 
the word. 

It is very curious that devout people should, 
through lack of thought, take up the language of 
mockers. Our Lord does not tarry. “For yet a little 
while, and he that shall come will come, and will 
not tarry.” (Heb. 10: 37.) In a parable we read 
“the bridegroom tarried” (Matt. 25: 5), but in that 
point his similarity to Christ is apparent only, not 
real. Scoffers, I say, may think so of Christ, but 
believers never. (Cf. 2 Pet. 3: 3,4.) The last word 
of Christ to his people is, “Yea, I come quickly.” 
(Rev. 22). 20.) 

Let us get our phraseology right. It may help us 
to get our theology right. 

What then, is the attitude Christians should sus- 
tan toward the final coming of Christ? 

I have often said that it is the attitude of expec- 
tation, of joyous and triumphant expectation. They 
are to believe in it, to desire it, to wait and watch for 
it. A Christian should lie down to sleep thinking 
that it may be before the morning dawns. He should 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 197 


rise believing that it may be before the going down 
of the sun. He ought so earnestly to desire it that 
his spirit will often be repeating the apostle John’s 
prayer, “Amen: come, Lord Jesus.” Any other at- 
titude of mind toward it breaks Christ’s plain com- 
mandment, is the result of ambition to taste the 
fruit of a forbidden tree of knowledge, leads to profit- 
less speculation and hinders spiritual and practical 
results in all Christian activities. It is a fact that 
many preachers spend more time advocating some 
theory as to the second coming of Christ than they 
do getting the world to believe in his first coming, 
of which two-thirds of the human race have not as 
yet even heard. 

The expectant attitude toward the return of 
Christ depends on five accepted facts: the momen- 
tous nature of the event, the certainty of its hap- 
pening, the definitely fixed date of it, the impossi- 
bility of our discerning the date, and Christian char- 
acter. 

On the first two points I need not dwell. If it is 
_to be, and we believe it is, it will be the most won- 
derful of events and experiences. We need not be 
interested in an event of no moment. 

But if one lives in expectation of an event he must 
believe that it will certainly happen. Now the final 
coming of Christ is so certain that it is fixed in the 
purpose of God. Jesus implied this when he said 
that only the Father knew when it would be. (Cf. 
Acts1: 7.) Paul affirmed it at Athens when he said 
that God had appointed a day in which he would 
judge the world by Jesus Christ. (Acts 17: SHI od ar 
is then a day already determined. It is marked in 
God’s calendar. It will not be changed; it will not 


198 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


be moved either backward or forward. It would 
seem then that any attempt on the part of Chris- 
tians, however devout, to hasten the coming of the 
Lord is nothing other than a pious blunder. Cer- 
tainly Peter is not to be understood as telling his 
readers that they are to do this, but, as the Ameri- 
can Standard version translates the passage, that 
they are to be “earnestly desiring the coming of the 
day of God.” (2 Pet. 3: 12. Cf. John 8: 56.) 

But to us the time is uncertain. Jesus said to his 
disciples: “It is not for you to know times or sea- 
sons, which the Father hath set within his own au- 
thority.” (Acts 1: 7.) Why should this be? Why 
does God not tell us? Simply because our lives here 
on the earth must be lived in uncertainty. That is 
the way in which character is grown. So we do not 
as a rule know the time of our death. It is easy to 
see that, if we did, the knowledge would be an injury 
to us. God “kindly veils our eyes.’ God’s moral 
purpose with men would be hopelessly defeated if 
the time of the end were definitely made known. If 
every lie scorched the tongue immediately, there 
would be no virtue in telling the truth. In the delay 
of the sentence of judgment is the possibility of 
character. For this reason God keeps the world in 
the suspense of uncertainty. 

If we apply these simple principles to the situa- 
tion of the apostles some difficulties will vanish 
away. They, too, had to live in a great degree of 
uncertainty. Christ revealed to Peter that he would 
die in a specific way. Peter and some others then 
knew that Jesus would not return while he was 
alive. But they did not know when Peter might 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 199 


die. And they rather expected that Jesus would 
come back while John was living. (John 21: 18-23.) 

Paul had revelations given to him concerning the 
time of the return. He, therefore, lived in expecta- 
tion of it with such liberty of thought as was con- 
sistent with these revelations. To say that Paul 
was mistaken in his teaching on this subject is a 
most superficial blunder. When he wrote to the 
Thessalonians he knew that Christ was not to come 
back just then. But we have shown that he was, 
at the very close of his life, looking for it. He did 
not know how soon and how quickly the “lawless 
one” might be released and the accompanying apos- 
tasy break loose. It is very evident, however, to one 
who knows rhetoric, that, when Paul classes him- 
self with the living at Christ’s return, as he does 
in the first epistles to the Thessalonians and Corin- 
thians, he has no settled conviction of the immi- 
nency of it, as some, who are bent on proving that 
Paul was mistaken, ambitiously affirm. (1 Thess. 
4: 15, 17; 1 Cor. 15: 51.) Augustine understood 
correctly that Paul, by the pronoun “we,” “person- 
ated” those who would be alive when Christ comes. 
(City of God, 20, 20.) There is a great difference 
between expecting Christ’s coming while one is alive 
and having the doctrinal conviction that he will 
come in that space of time. Paul had the former 
state of mind. He did not have the latter. Christ 
commanded the former. He forbade the latter. 
Some critics do not see this important distinction. 
He who says that Christ will return in this decade 
or in this generation makes as great a blunder as 
he who says that he will return in the next decade 
or the next generation or any specific future decade 


200 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


or generation. Both are too headstrong to know the 
mind of Christ on this subject as revealed in the 
New Testament. As for me, since I know what 
Christ himself has plainly said, I know also that 
these ambitious pryers into forbidden secrets are 
talking out of the profound depths of their wilful ig- 
norance. 

John had the same expectant mind as did Peter 
and Paul, modified also by the revelations granted 
to him. 

In conclusion, notice how Peter and Paul and 
Christ all denounce the disposition to find some ex- 
cuse for not expecting his coming. Peter calls such 
persons “scoffers.” (2 Pet. 3: 3.) Paul compares 
them with those that “sleep” and “drink” and ca- 
rouse. (1 Thess. 5: 7.) Jesus said that it is the 
“evil servant” that says, “My Lord tarrieth.” (Matt. 
24: 45.) 

“He who testifieth these things saith, Yea: I 
come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus.” (Rev. 
22: 20.) 


THE QUESTION OF THE 
MILLENNIUM 


For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see, 

Saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be; 

Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails, 

Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales; 

Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain’d a ghastly 
dew 

From the nations’ airy navies grappling in the central blue; 

Far along the world-wide whisper of the south-wind rushing 
warn, . 

With the standards of the peoples plunging thro’ the thunder- 
storm ; 

Till we Hane hat throbb’d no longer, and the battle-flags were 
url’ 

In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world. 


There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in 
awe, 

And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law. 

So I triumph’d ere my passion sweeping thro’ me left me dry, 

Left me with the palsied heart, and left me with the jaundiced 


eye; 

Kye to which all order festers, all things here are out of joint: 

Science moves, but slowly, slowly, creeping on from point to 
point: 

Slowly comes a hungry people, as a lion creeping nigher, 

Glares at one that nods and winks behind a slowly-dying fire. 

Yet I doubt not thro’ the ages one increasing purpose runs, 

And the thoughts of men are widen’d with the process of the 
suns. 


—Tennyson. 


CHAPTER VIII 


POE OU ERSTION OF THE 
MILLENNIUM 


Millennium is a word made from two Latin words 
that mean a thousand years. It has come into com- 
mon use in English to signify an age, more or less 
definitely conceived, of moral and religious pros- 
perity, the golden age of the world. 

The relation of the final coming of Christ to the 
millennium is one of the great problems of Biblical 
interpretation. According as one fixes the time of 
that great event before or after the millennium is 
he a premillennialist or a postmillennialist. 

Is it a question of any moment? Does it matter 
whether a Christian holds to one view rather than 
the other? It does matter very much. He is quite 
thoughtless who says it makes no difference what 
standpoint we take. Again one who becomes an ef- 
ficient interpreter of the Holy Scriptures must be 
either a premillennialist or a postmillennialist. He 
cannot be both; he must be one or the other. Every 
Christian must believe in a millennium, a millen- 
nium of some kind. 

There are two classes under each of the general 
divisions just given. Some premillennialists think 
that Christ will, upon his return, strip Satan of all 
his power, banish all sin from the world, renew the 
kingdom of David, reign upon a literal throne in 


[ 203 ] 


204: A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


Jerusalem, or some center of government, set up 
there again the service of the temple, and from 
thence send forth with compelling power his law 
and bring every human being on the face of the 
earth under his beneficent sway. The gospel, as 
they understand it, is not to leaven society and save 
many but is rather a testimony to the world and a 
means of rescuing afew. The program of the Com- 
mission is to accomplish little. Other dispensations 
have ended in failure and so will this one. The world 
is on the toboggan and must hit the bottom. When 
the crash comes Christ will come and upon the ruins 
build the millennium, which is the reign of Christ in 
person for an exact one thousand years. Premillen- 
nialists of the more pronounced type insist upon all 
these points and many others of a like kind. 

Premillennialists of the milder type hold to the 
first four points given above, and to certain of the 
others but not to all of them. They are not so sure 
as to how Christ will rule and execute his will. They 
have more regard for the program of the Commis- 
sion. They are not so reactionary and aggressive as 
are the first class mentioned. 

All premillennialists think that the millennium 
will be a literal reign of Christ in person on the earth 
for one thousand years and that he will institute it 
when he comes again. 

Postmillennialists are also of two kinds. A few 
think the millennium will be a period of exactly a 
thousand years, quite well defined; that it will be 
an age characterized by the dominance of Christian 
men and moral principles; that, though evil will 
not be banished entirely from the world, it will be 
greatly suppressed, and righteousness will be in the 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 205 


ascendance, in society, in business, in politics, every- 
where. They interpret Rev. 20: 1-10 as largely fig- 
urative. 

But the great majority of postmillennialists un- 
derstand the language concerning the millennium in 
Rev. 20: 1-10 as wholly, or almost wholly, figura- 
tive. It is not a period of a thousand years. It 1s 
a period of the reign of grace, of the prosperity of 
Christianity, a part of the gospel age, perhaps the 
principal part of it or, it may be, all of it. It is not 
well defined. We do not know when we enter into it. 
We may now be in it and near the end of it. We 
may indeed, be passing out of it. While it would be 
unfair to say that this class of postmillennialists do 
not take Rev. 20: 1-10 seriously, it should be frankly 
stated that they consider this passage of Scripture 
as little more than a vivid description in concrete 
terms of the power of Christianity in the world and 
of the moral beauty and influence of the lives of 
regenerated men and women, especially the mar- 
tyrs. They refuse to put more meaning into the 
passage in Revelation than is found in the teaching 
of the parables and plain statements elsewhere in 
the Bible with reference to the kingdom. The mil- 
lennium as a utopian state on earth they do not ac- 
cept. They are optimistic in regard to the Great 
Commission. They believe that the kingdom of God 
will leaven and transform the nations and peoples 
of the world, but absolute blessedness is to be real- 
ized only in heaven itself. To this class the writer 
belongs. 

I do not believe that Christ and the apostles are 
committed to the doctrine of a millennium such as 
many believe in. I think such a utopian age is the 


206 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


product of dreamers. It is created by the imagina- 
tion and not educed by sound criticism. I have 
watched carefully for a quarter of a century the 
ways of the Bible interpreters, to whom I refer, and 
I would not for my right hand handle the Word of 
God so fancifully, arbitrarily, and unscientifically as 
they do. 

On the other hand, I recoil, as from leprosy, from 
that view which holds that Christ and the apostles 
adopted the Jewish dream of a millennial age, an 
age that is now seen to be impossible. (Cf. Case in 
Millennial Hope, pp. 92, 106, 112, 151.) The Jew- 
ish doctrine of the millennium is not found at all 
in Christ or Paul or Peter and the language of Re- 
velation, when properly interpreted, does not con- 
tain it. Peter’s language shows that he would have 
no patience with those who would undertake to 
measure off for the Lord a thousand-year period. 
(2 Pet. 3: 8.) I agree that the millennium of the 
premillennialists is impossible, both from scientific 
reasons and from Biblical reasons. That an anti- 
millennialist should adopt the false interpretation of 
the premillennialists and then reject it as a false 
Jewish hope incorporated in the Bible is an interest- 
ing procedure. It is no compliment to either of 
them. It is abominable. 

Both the premillennialists and the antimillennial- 
ists, Just referred to, make the common error of not 
taking into account all the data. Neither hypothesis 
explains all the facts. 

Examine practically the scheme of premillennial- 
ism, and see that it is impossible. Christ returns 
in person and takes his people up in the air with 
him for a while, which is the so-called “rapture,” 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 207 


all proof of which, as soon as it is examined vanishes 
into thin air. Then he comes back with them and 
begins his reign in Jerusalem, or some center of gov- 
ernment, from whence he brings all the world under 
his sway. The righteous dead are raised up, some 
of whom sit with him on his throne. Satan is 
bound; that is, his power is taken away completely. 
There is no evil in the earth. How will Christ reign? 
By moral suasion or force? Not by moral suasion, 
as he does now, which method is proving a failure, 
but by foree; in which case Christ’s kingdom will 
be essentially different from what it is now. Jesus 
said: ‘““My kingdom is not of this world,’ meaning 
that it is not to be established by force. The nature 
of the kingdom in the millennium must, therefore, 
be other than it is now. For this reason most, if 
not all, premillennialists contend that this age is not 
the age of the kingdom at all. Therefore, if we have 
the kingdom now, and we do, their idea of the mil- 
lennium is impossible. 

Again all premillennialists, so far as I know, con- 
sider that in the millennium this earth will be as it 
is now; there will be the two hemispheres and the 
five continents, the oceans, rivers and mountain 
systems as we now have them. There will be the 
same seasons, the same forces and laws of nature, 
the same means of travel and communication. How 
then will Christ get his will done perfectly? If space 
and time intervene as obstacles in the execution of 
Christ’s will, and human nature is not in itself per- 
fect, it is impossible to get perfect results in the 
execution of his will. But is human nature to be 
perfect in the millennium? Are all born holy in 
the millennium? Or is there no propagation of the 


208 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


human species then? If human nature is perfect 
why should there be the same kind of physical world 
that there is now, a world fitted for sinful men, not 
perfect men? Millennial men require a correspond- 
ing millennial material environment, but this would 
be much more than a millennium. So far as I am 
aware no premillennialist pictures for us a millennium 
without the heat of summer, the cold of winter, the 
laws of gravitation and motion, which all cause ac- 
cidents, suffering and death to men in natural bodies. 

If Christ sits upon a throne, located in a certain 
place, he can be communicated with personally by a 
few only. Some will be twelve thousand miles away, 
with seas, deserts, mountains and rivers interven- 
ing. They will be put to a disadvantage. For men 
in the millennium will be hindered by space and dis- 
tance, as they are now. But this inequality makes 
a premillennial millennium impossible. 

Once more, if men in the millennium have natu- 
ral bodies as they must have to be citizens in a 
material world controlled by natural law, they will 
be subject to accidents, pain and death, all of which 
are impossible in a perfect millennium. But, if it 
be said that in the millennium the saints have glori- 
fied bodies, and live in a glorified world, then it is 
not the millennium at all that is thought of but 
heaven itself. There are three spheres or states of 
human existence, heaven, hell and this mundane 
sphere as it now is. There is no need of a fourth; 
nor is it possible except as a utopian creation of an 
impractical imagination. 

If one should say that he is a premillennialist but 
that he is unable to give even an outline of what 
the millennium is to be, then he confesses that he 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 209 


does not know what he is talking about. He is like 
the Irishman who does not know what he wants but 
wants it right now. 

The method of interpreting the Scriptures used 
by premillennialists is faulty. They start with a 
certain interpretation of Rev. 20: 1-10 and then 
work their idea back into the epistles and Gospels. 
Now the book of Revelation is confessedly difficult 
to understand. It is predictive prophecy set forth 
in visions, symbols and figures. It is a marvelous 
piece of work and as mysterious as marvelous. It 
is an ordered delirium of words. Therefore, to base 
on this one passage alone a certain view of Christ, 
the kingdom and the future, and then attempt to 
read it into the plainer passages of Scripture, or to 
bend these passages to an unnatural meaning to 
fit and reinforce this view is most unjustifiable. It 
is impossible to get to the light in this way. The op- 
posite method is the only proper one. First, to un- 
derstand the plain statements and the parables of 
Christ concerning the kingdom and the future and 
armed with this knowledge to attack Revelation. 

I cite three examples of the method of which I 
complain. 

Paul says: “The dead in Christ shall rise first.” 
(1 Thess. 4: 16.) Here Paul is not comparing the 
dead in Christ with the dead out of Christ, as many 
premillennialists assume. He is saying not a word 
about the unsaved, dead or living, nor is he think- 
ing of them. He is comparing the dead in Christ 
with the living in Christ at his final coming. 

Some twenty years ago a preacher of note, a doc- 
tor of divinity, and I were conversing on the sub- 
ject of the kingdom. Naturally we came to speak 


210 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


of the parables. To my surprise he said that in the 
parable of the Mustard Seed the statement, “the 
birds of the heaven come and lodge in the branches 
thereof” (Matt. 13: 32), signifies the foul influences 
that were to settle down upon the kingdom. I was 
on the point of laughing when I noticed that he was 
really serious. Since then I have learned that it is 
a common way, premillennialists have, of interpret- 
ing this parable. It is so ludicrous that I hardly 
know whether I should take time to correct it. Je- 
sus is giving us a word picture of the growth of the 
kingdom by contrasting the size of the mustard 
plant when full grown with the smallness of the 
seed. When a boy on the farm I often saw the very 
thing Jesus described, mustard plants growing high 
and spreading out their branches above the field of 
flax, which was then a common crop in Missouri, 
and the birds resting themselves in these branches. 
Jesus was doing just one thing with this parable, 
teaching that the kingdom of heaven which was 
then small was going to be great. The clause re- 
ferred to is a touch by the great artist to picture to 
us this thought. To say that this parable teaches an 
unnatural growth of the kingdom, in that a vege- 
table becomes a tree, or that it points to the corrup- 
tion of the kingdom, since birds in the Bible always 
symbolize what is filthy, is absurd. Not every fowl in 
the Bible signifies what is foul. The dove, for ex- 
ample, symbolizes the very opposite. This little 
parable certainly was not intended to teach just 
anything and everything that fertile fancy may 
invent. But there is nothing that we can do for one 
who has such wings to his imagination, except to 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 211 


wait until he grows more feathers in the tail of his 
judgment. 

Following the parable of the Mustard Seed in 
Matthew comes the parable of the Leaven, a short 
parable of one verse. (Matt. 13: 33.) This also 
teaches the corruption of the kingdom, say these 
same interpreters, since leaven in the Bible always 
signifies the principle of evil. The idea that leaven 
signifies evil has been “worked overtime.” Its ex- 
clusion from the bread of the Passover pointed to 
the haste in which they quitted Egypt. They had 
no time then to wait for yeast to rise. The very 
purpose of the Passover with its specified details was 
to commemorate that great event and thus to get 
the world ready to appreciate the greater event of 
which it was prophetic. Leaven in the Bible does 
not always signify the principle of evil. Sometimes 
it does and sometimes it does not. In Lev. 7: 13 and 
23: 17 it does not. But if it were so used in every 
other passage of the Bible, this alone would not 
prove that it signifies the corruption of the king- 
dom here. A speaker may use words as he wishes 
to. There are no mechanical rules for rhetoric. If 
there were there would be no rhetoric. Peter com- 
pared Satan to a lion and John called Christ a lion. 
Both knew well what they were doing. Jesus com- 
pared himself in his final coming to a thief com- 
ing to steal. He certainly knew how to handle 
words. Now if he wanted to teach that the king- 
dom is going to work in the world as leaven works 
in dough, spreading through it, giving to it its own 
quality and making wholesome what would other- 
wise be heavy and unhealthful bread, that it is to 
convert and transform the world, as it is said, “the 


212 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of our 
Lord, and of his Christ” (Rev. 11: 15), he did well 
to use such an illustration. Was there a better 
way of expressing this thought? That Jesus did 
intend that his kingdom should convert and trans- 
form the world, or some important part of it, is 
proved by the Great Commission and by the pas- 
sage just quoted from Revelation. 

But to say that leaven in this parable signifies 
an evil principle is to say entirely too much. Inter- 
preters who affirm this certainly do not see to what 
it leads. Jesus says, “the kingdom of heaven is 
like unto leaven.” If leaven symbolizes evil here, 
he teaches, not that the kingdom will be corrupted, 
but that it is itself the corrupting principle. He does 
not liken the kingdom to the meal in which the 
leaven is put, but to the leaven itself. Now did 
anyone of those persons listening to Jesus, who knew 
that leaven was necessary for good, wholesome 
bread, imagine that he was talking of something 
evil? It is absurd. If some interpreters would 
pay attention to the simple principles of psychology 
and rhetoric and to the simple rules of grammar 
they would not blunder so unfortunately. They need 
more “salt in themselves.” If their thought also 
contained more of the leaven of common sense it 
would be more profitable. It is admitted, how- 
ever, that if the kingdom is to be corrupted, if 
it is to lose its power, if it is to be overcome by 
the world instead of overcoming the world, then 
we must find some other way of interpreting these 
parables than the way here suggested, that is, we 
must give to them an unnatural, if not an impos- 
sible, meaning. But the natural meaning of the 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 213 


language in each case is that which we have assigned 
to it. The idea that the kingdom is to grow and 
powerfully affect the world and not succumb to it 
is taught throughout the Bible. Why should one 
labor to prove the opposite view, a view that is 
disheartening, discouraging and deadening? 

Now this theory that the kingdom is to be cor- 
rupted I would like to nail to a cross. There is not 
one single proof of it. It is an assumption and 
wholly unsupported. 

A church may be corrupted. There are few, I 
am sure, that do not have in them some people of 
the world. Any organization may be corrupted. 
Man may be corrupted. Every thing that is visible 
may be corrupted. But the kingdom of God cannot 
be corrupted. Light cannot be corrupted. If it 
pass through fetid atmosphere it is as pure as when 
it left the sun. Truth cannot be corrupted. If it is 
buried under the rubbish of lies, if it is trampled in 
the mire, there it still is as untarnished as when it 
went forth from the thought of God. “No lie is of 
the truth.” (1 John 2: 21.) As light and truth can- 
not be corrupted, so the kingdom of God cannot be 
corrupted. It is the safety vault which God himself 
built. No explosive can crack the door. No demon 
can pick the lock. No flame can melt the hinges. No 
poison from the miasma of the world can penetrate 
the walls to corrode its treasures. It is rust-proof, 
moth-proof, fire-proof, error-proof. 

I know that there are a few passages of Scrip- 
ture which may seem at first to teach that the 
kingdom may be corrupted but when examined care- 
fully they will be found not to do so. For example, 
Jesus likened the kingdom to a drag-net, “that was 


214 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: which, 
when it was filled, they drew up on the beach; and 
they sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, 
but the bad they cast away. So shall it be at the 
end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and 
sever the wicked from among the righteous, and 
shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall 
be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matt. 13: 47- 
50.) 

Now it is evident that Jesus by this parable is 
describing what we see going on all the time. The 
gospel is preached and all sorts of people profess to 
accept it. Of these some are saved and some are 
not. Behold the mongrel mixture that makes up 
Christendom to-day. Take any body of organized 
Christians: there are among them, we know, many 
that are not real believers. This was the case in 
the beginning of Christianity. Judas, one of the 
apostles in Jesus’ own company, was a “son of perdi- 
tion.” (John, 1%: 12.)") Simon,’ the. isorcerer, some 
fessed to believe, and was baptized and was counted 
a real believer, but was not. (Acts 8: 9-24.) Did 
Jesus mean to say that the bad things in the net 
represent evil people in the kingdom, such people 
as will, in the judgment, be cast into the “furnace of 
fire’? Of course he did not. He meant to say the 
very opposite, namely, that God knows who and 
what they are and will in time send them to their 
own place. The parable of the Tares, which Je- 
sus himself explained, teaches this truth most 
plainly. (Matt. 13: 24-30, 36-43.) The “good 
seed” are the “sons of the kingdom” and the “tares” 
are the “sons of the evil one’; they “grow together,” 
not in the kingdom but in the world, for Jesus says, 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 215 


“the field is the world.” But even in this parable, 
which plainly states that believers and unbelievers 
are intermixed in the world, not in the kingdom, 
he says: “And they shall gather out of his king- 
dom all things that cause stumbling, and them that 
do iniquity.” That is, in the same breath Jesus 
speaks of the same class of persons as both out- 
side of and within his kingdom. But it is obvious 
that they were only considered as in the kingdom 
but were really not, which is the fact Jesus is em- 
phasizing. It is a very important truth that we 
here face and one that was taught often by Jesus. 
My belief is that he chose Judas to be one of the 
Twelve partly, if not wholly, for the purpose of 
teaching by example this very thing. It was ab- 
solutely essential that his disciples should know 
and be prepared for this condition. Paul knew it. 
“Howbeit the firm foundation of God standeth, hav- 
ing this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his: 
and, Let every one that nameth the name of the 
Lord depart from unrighteousness.” (2 Tim. 2: 
19.) One who understands the gospel of the grace 
of God cannot hold that saved men will be lost. 
Now all that are in the kingdom are saved, as we 
have before proved, which, indeed, needs no proving 
to those who understand the gospel. Accordingly 
it 1s impossible that any that are in the kingdom 
should be cast into the “furnace of fire.’ There- 
fore, the bad things in the drag-net do not signify 
evil people in the kingdom, or a corruption of the 
kingdom, but evil people who consider themselves, 
and are considered by others, as in the kingdom. 
Bad people are not in the kingdom but in the 
world and the bad acts that Christians do are not 


216 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


their acts as Christians but as people of the world, 
or as having the world in them. As it has been 
pointedly said of the Israelites, that it took God 
only a little while to get them out of Egypt but a 
long while to get Egypt out of them, so we may 
say of Christians, that, while by one blessed ex- 
perience they get out of the world, it is by many 
hard experiences the world is gotten out of them. 
But good people, if we understand what is meant 
by good people, are all in the kingdom and bad 
people, if we understand what is meant by bad 
people, are all in the world. No one of either class 
is in the other sphere. No man is in both spheres 
and there is no third class. As God sees man, and 
he sees them as they are, there are only two classes, 
good and bad, saved and unsaved, in the kingdom 
and in the world, for Christ and against him. “There 
shall in no wise enter into it anything unclean, or 
he that maketh an abomination and a lie: but only 
they that are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” 
(Reve2bi 271) 

There is another assumption of premillennialism 
that ought not to be granted, namely, that the 
world is getting worse. I do not think it is. I think 
it is getting better. We cannot make an extended 
discussion of this question but must be content sim- 
ply to analyze it and suggest the line of argument. 

What is meant by the statement that the world 
is getting better? Not that the world in itself is 
getting better. It gets neither better nor worse. 
The spirit of the world is ever the same. It is 
against Christ. It always has been and always will 
be. Nor is it meant that unregenerate men are be- 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 217 


coming better. They may become even worse, as 
they have more light and do not receive it. 

We mean that there are more good men than 
there were formerly. If the number of good men 
is growing less, then certainly the world is growing 
worse. We mean that these good men in general 
have a better quality of goodness than good men in 
general had in former ages. There have been in all 
ages outstanding and pre-eminent characters that 
should not be thought of in this comparison. We 
speak of the average standard of Christian living 
of this and former ages. We mean that the propor- 
tion of good men to bad men is greater in this age 
than in former ages; that good men are increas- 
ing more rapidly than bad men. We mean that the 
forces that make for righteousness are more num- 
erous and more potent now than ever before, hold- 
ing in check more effectively the forces of evil. 

One can not be a competent judge of this ques- 
tion without a knowledge of history. But many 
have some knowledge of history, enough to permit 
them to form a tentative judgment. Slavery is 
passing, the saloon is passing, despotism is passing, 
idolatry is passing, polygamy is passing, certain 
forms of cruelties are passing. With the World War 
fresh in our minds I do not hesitate to say that the 
outrages and inhumanities committed in it, terrible 
as they were, were not equal to some that have 
been practiced in past ages. 

Some good things are coming. Science, a natural 
good, is here. The means of disseminating knowl- 
edge rapidly are here. Useful inventions are here. 
Advanced methods of medical treatment are here, 
relieving much suffering. There is a more general 


218 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


appreciation of good principles than ever before, 
such as the brotherhood of man, and the rights 
of women and children. There are more Bibles 
in the world than ever before and they are studied 
more. There are more missionaries now than ever 
before. The gospel is preached and printed in more 
languages. More men and women are teaching in 
Sunday schools and more people are attending Sun- 
day schools. Spiritual conceptions of God and moral 
ideals prevail now more than in any former age. 
There is much evil; the shadows of night hang 
heavy over the world; but the day is becoming 
brighter and brighter. I am glad to believe it. Asa 
student of history I can believe it. Asa Christian I 
must believe it. To doubt it would be for me to 
doubt Christ. 

“Say not thou, What is the cause that the former 
days were better than these? for thou dost not in- 
quire wisely concerning this.” (Ecce. 7: 10.) 

Premillennialism is naturally pessimistic with re- 
gard to the program of Christ for this age. It can- 
not help but minimize the Commission. Since the 
kingdom of Christ is not now to be established there 
is not much for them to do. One premillennialist 
has said boldly that “the baptism of Matt. 28: 19 
is a kingdom baptism, connected with the preach- 
ing of the gospel of the kingdom, after the rapture 
of the church.” Christians, it is contended, are sim- 
ply to witness for Christ but not with the expecta- 
tion of making him king. If they attempt to make 
disciples of all the nations they are foredoomed to 
failure. They should not expect to accomplish this 
result. Many premillennialists do not go so far 
as I have indicated but this is premillennialism. 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 219 


They are all moving in that direction. Some know 
how to put on the brakes and some do not. I fear 
that premillennialism is resorted to by some as a 
covering for their indifference and reactionary spirit. 
Their claim to superior piety is sad and pitiable. 

How different from all this is the thought of 
Christ. “Be of good cheer; I have overcome the 
world.” (Jno. 16: 33.) 

There is another conclusive argument against pre- 
millennialism, which is not often stressed. It is 
this: the return of Christ and the winding up of 
this age will be accomplished with such divine judg- 
ments and such radical changes in the earth and the 
heavens that the millennium after these events will 
be impossible. There will take place at Christ’s 
final coming the cataclysm of the universe, “the 
wreck of matter and crash of worlds.” 

Jesus in his forecasting of the last things puts the 
destruction of Jerusalem before his return, but he 
considers his return and the termination of this 
age as two phases of the same event. That is, they 
will happen at the same time. He describes the 
ending of this age in terms that indicate that the 
next age will have nothing in common with it. This 
age will not pass gradually or imperceptibly into the 
next, as the age before Christ passed into the Chris- 
tian age. But this age will end abruptly. This 
age is the age of probation and the determining of 
destinies. That age is the age of determined destinies. 
There is no probation in that age. The final judg- 
ment takes place when Jesus comes. Opportunity 
for salvation will cease then. The physical changes 
in the earth and the heavens will be so great that 
it is useless to compare life and conditions on the 


220 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


earth then with what they are now. Some of these 
ideas are set forth plainly in the statements of Je- 
sus, but the germs of the others are also there and 
are developed more fully by Peter and Paul. 

The physical changes Jesus describes thus: “The 
sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give 
her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven.” 
(Matt. 24: 29.) In the parable of the Ten Virgins 
the sentence, “and the door was shut,” means that 
the destinies of the two classes of men, the saved 
corresponding to the “wise virgins,” who are inside, 
and the unsaved, corresponding to the “foolish vir- 
gins,” who are outside, are fixed. (Matt. 25: 1-13.) 
Under these circumstances there can be no cam- 
paign for the salvation of sinners or for the es- 
tablishing of the kingdom of Christ. The preach- 
ing of the gospel is for this age and no other. Jesus 
concludes his discourse with a description of the 
final judgment in which he affirms again that on his 
return the destinies of the two classes of men, the 
“blessed” and the “cursed,” shall be eternally fixed. 
When Jesus comes probation ends and eternal des- 
tinies begin. 

It should be kept in mind that the doctrine of 
the so-called “rapture” is a theological fiction, pure 
and simple. The ground for it, like the sphere of its 
existence, is, I repeat, thin air. 

Peter develops considerably the ideas of Jesus 
concerning the physical changes and the cessation 
of probation. He says that the world “perished” 
once by means of water and it will perish the next 
time by means of fire, which will have intensity of 
heat sufficient to melt the very elements and to 
dissolve the very heavens so that the heavens will 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 221 


pass away and the earth will be burned up. If they 
do not disappear entirely they will be so changed 
as to be “new heavens and a new earth.” He re- 
veals his belief that probation will end when the 
day of the Lord comes, and that what some count 
slackness in the Lord, concerning his promise to re- 
turn, is on the contrary longsuffering and a desire 
that none should “perish but that all should come to 
repentance.” That is, Christ does not return at once 
because he wants to give men opportunity to be 
saved. The “day of the Lord” will be “the day of 
judgment and destruction of ungodly men.” Peter 
understands that hell for the wicked, that are on 
the earth, will begin when Christ returns. All these 
events take place at the return of Christ, not at a 
later date. (2 Pet. 3: 1-13, 15.) 

Paul speaks of Christ’s return as a revelation in 
“flaming fire” (2 Thess. 1: 7), and teaches that crea- 
tion itself is to undergo a radical change, a change 
so great that, whereas the world is now suited to 
us in our state of “pain and groaning,” it will then 
be suited to us in our glorified and resurrection state. 
That is, that creation is to experience a resurrec- 
tion or redemption corresponding to the “redemp- 
tion of the body.” (Rom. 8: 18-25.) This is a 
change too revolutionary and far-reaching for any 
premillennial scheme. In harmony with this con- 
ception Paul understands that final awards will be 
made when Christ comes again. He says that he will 
then “render vengeance to them that know not God, 
and to them that obey not the gospel of the Lord 
Jesus: who shall suffer punishment, even eternal 
destruction from the face of the Lord and from the 
glory of his might, when he shall come to be glorified 


222 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


in his saints, and to be marveled at in all them that 
believed (because our testimony unto you was be- 
lieved) in that day.” (2 Thess. 1: 8-10.) Paul, 
as Jesus and Peter, teaches that when Jesus comes 
again heaven and hell will begin for all those that 
are on earth. God will not wait longer to judge sin- 
ners. Not another day of grace will be given them. 
The sweet note of the gospel will be heard no more; 

for the gospel is good news to sinners only who have 
hope of salvation. 

I conclude, therefore, since a premillennial mil- 
lennium is impossible, and since also a postmillen- 
nial millennium of a definite one thousand years, 
so well defined that we will know when we enter 
into it, is inconstant with the expectation of Christ’s 
return, enjoined upon all Christians, that the one 
thousand years of Rev. 20: 1-10 cannot be taken 
literally and cannot mean anything else than an 
indefinite period. Other reasons also for this con- 
clusion will be given in the next chapter. 

“But forget not this one thing, beloved, that 
one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a 
thousand years as one day.” (2 Pet. 3: 8.) 


AN INTERPRETATION OF 
REVELATION 20: 1-10 


“Ye are the salt of the earth.” (Matt. 5: 13.) 
“Ye are the light of the world.” (Matt. 5: 14.) 


“Verily I say unto you, that ye who have followed me, in the 
regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his 
glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve 
tribes of Israel.” (Matt. 19: 28.) 


CHAPTER IX 


AN INTERPRETATION OF 
REVELATION? 20: 1-10 


The temptation to make an extended exposition 
of this noted passage is great, but space forbids it. 
We must be content with a brief treatment of the 
subject, with little more than an outline of an in- 
terpretation. 

Before coming to the specific passage to be con- 
sidered let us call to mind certain general and im- 
portant principles that must guide us if we would 
get at the truth we are seeking. 

1. First, the book of Revelation is in the main a 
book of predictions. Now all such Biblical writings 
are difficult to understand. This is true of both Old 
Testament and New Testament literature of this 
character. Of the latter we have good examples in 
Jesus’ discourse to his disciples in the twenty- 
fourth and twenty-fifth chapters of Matthew and 
in the second chapter of Paul’s second letter to the 
Thessalonians. But the problems of Revelation far 
surpass those of any other book of the Bible. There 
is something in the very nature of predictive proph- 
ecy that makes it hard to interpret. As has 
been said, all unveiling of the future is in part only, 
and is accompanied also by a veiling. The rays of 
the telescopic vision of inspired prophets penetrate 
far into the future and bring many objects into the 


{ 225 J 


226 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


light, but in the process some dark shadows are 
necessarily created. Let us be thankful for so much 
that is visible and not try to see what the shadows 
hide from our view. It is intended that our vision 
be limited. Augustine well says that “prophetic dic- 
tion delights in mingling figurative and real lan- 
guage, and thus in some sort veiling the sense.” 
(City of God. 20, 16.) 

2. Secondly, while Revelation is in the main a 
forecasting of “the things which must shortly come 
to pass,” (22: 6), some things of past history are de- 
scribed. This is necessary as a background for the 
event of future history that is then foretold. Con- 
sider 12: 1-9. Our passage requires the application 
of this principle. 

3. Thirdly, as Dr. E. Y. Mullins has said, “John 
in his vision passes from earth to heaven and back 
again at will.” This is an important observation. 
At times, indeed, it is difficult to tell whether the 
Revelator is describing what is in the lower sphere 
or what is in the higher. Study, for example, 21: 
1-22: 5. To the apostle John physical death is 
but an incident. If one has fellowship with God, 
if he is in the kingdom, the “article of death” is a 
small item. The kingdom of God is both in heaven 
and on earth. It is “the holy city Jerusalem, com- 
ing down out of heaven from God.” (21: 10.) The 
saved are citizens of this city now. (21: 27.) Paul 
has the same conception. (Phil. 3: 20.) So valuable 
is this consideration that we may say it is one of 
the keys for the unlocking of the mysteries of the 
book. We will need to use it when we come to in- 
terpret verses four, five and six of our passage. 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 227 


4. Fourthly, Revelation is mainly a book of vis- 
ions. Now visions are scenes and sounds that ap- 
peal to the eye and ear. They are made out of 
physical things and are represented in terms that 
correspond thereto. There is, of course, a difference 
between the vision and its meaning. (Cf. Gen. 40: 
8-19; 41: 1-382; Dan. 2: 1-49; Acts 10: 9-17; 16: 
9-10.) Again since a vision is itself a symbol of 
something, or a picture of it drawn in material lines 
and colors, it is necessary that some parts of it have 
less significance than others and that some parts 
may have no significance or meaning at all. They 
have a place in the vision or picture but are not 
intended to teach anything. This is true of the 
parables also. 

Revelation is a book of visions, pictures, symbols, 
and figures of speech and must be interpreted as 
such. There is action and vividness. But we must 
not infer that the writer loses himself or does not 
know what he is about. There is method in all his 
movements and ecstatic flights. He reaches the high- 
est altitudes of apocalyptic aviation, but he lands on 
the ground safely. 

The Revelator describes himself as “in the Spirit.” 
(1: 10.) Once he tells of his intensely agitated 
emotions. (5: 4.) However, he is not “drunk with 
wine but is filled with the spirit.” (Cf. Acts, 2: 
13-15; Eph. 5: 18.) The book seems to be a wild 
delirium of speech but it is not. It is well ordered. 
The writer seems to the uninitiated to reel to and 
fro like a drunk man and to be falling. But he is 
not. He keeps his balance and plants his foot solidly. 
He knows what he wants to do and he does it in a 


228 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


dramatic way, as a skilled actor, using scenes and 
words with precision to effect a desired result. 

5. Fifthly, is there some specific rule or principle 
yet more definite that will help us in our task? Yes, 
and stated bluntly, it is this: 

In Revelation often one thing is said and another 
is meant. 

I may almost say that this is the rule in the 
book. We should not be afraid to admit this prin- 
ciple and to put it to use. It is the very principle 
of the symbol and the figure of speech to say one 
thing and mean another. It is the very principle 
of the parable also. If one is disposed to be con- 
tentious on this point, let him consider further that 
this principle is the very principle of language it- 
self. A word is the sign of an idea. The audible 
sound or the visible letter stands for the thought 
that is neither heard nor seen. The character of the 
style of Revelation demands the application of this 
principle. It is essential to an approach to the ~ 
mysteries of Revelation. If one will not follow this . 
lead he must stand afar off and remain ignorant, or, 
what is much worse, make fanciful and harmful - 
interpretations. 

Now the way one faces the question of figurative 
language is very interesting. He may be inclined 
to find figures of speech everywhere. He may refuse 
to see them anywhere. Or he may see them where 
he wants to see them and refuse to see them where 
he does not want to see them. He may be very ar- 
bitrary on the subject. 

For example, Martin Luther contended that Je- 
sus’ statement, “this is my body” (Matt. 26: 26), 
means just what it says. With a wilful dogmatism 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 229 


he affirms: “Christ has said, ‘This is my body.’ Let 
them show me a body that is not a body. I reject 
reason, common sense, carnal arguments, and mathe- 
matical proofs. God is above mathematics. We 
have the word of God; we must adore it and per- 
form it.” (Quoted by Snowden in The Coming of 
the Lord, p. 197.) This mad monk, in some re- 
spects strong, in other respects weak, was in a tight 
place and, as in the case of David once, his only 
way of salvation was to play the fool, which he did 
with a show of success. He did not see, that, if 
he was proving anything, he was proving more than 
consubstantiation, even transubstantiation. It is 
too bad that most of the world at that time was 
either going after the “beast” or after this parboiled 
priest. 

And yet many deal with the passage we are to 
consider with a like unreason. They are willing to 
see symbols and figures of speech everywhere else in 
Revelation except in this instance, where they con- 
tend, the language must mean just what it says. 
Reason, common sense, mathematical principles 
and even the plain meaning of the word of God in 
scores of passages do not have any weight with 
them. Of course, we cannot reason with those who, 
like Luther reject reason; but we may save some 
from error, who have not yet gotten into such a 
hopeless mental state. 

In order that the symbol or figure of speech, that 
is, the saying of one thing and the meaning of an- 
other, may be seen to be most common in Revelation 
and in order that the fact may be appreciated as 
essential to a proper interpretation of the prophecy, 
I cite a number of examples, moving rapidly through 


230 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


the book. In many cases the meaning is explained 
by John himself. 

“The seven stars are the angels of the seven 
churches and the seven candlesticks are seven 
churches.” (1: 20.) The Smyrna church is to have 
tribulation “ten days” (2: 10), which can hardly 
be taken with mathematical exactness. “Satan’s 
throne,” is said to be in Pergamum, that is, some 
great evil was there. (2: 13.) “The sword of my 
mouth,” a figure that occurs several times, means 
the truth of Christ. (2: 16. Cf. 19: 15, 21.) “Hid- 
den manna” and ‘white stone’ stand for salva- 
tion or spiritual fellowship with Christ. (2: 17.) 
“The woman Jezebel” is spoken of as a member 
of the church in Thyatira (2: 20); but certainly 
he does not mean that a woman by that name was 
there but that some person, perhaps a woman, was 
having an influence in the church to corrupt it, as 
Jezebel corrupted Israel of old. ‘Morning star” 
means honor or influence in the kingdom. (2: 28.) 
“Garments” stands for lives. (8: 4. Cf. 6: 11; 7: 
13 f; 19: 8; 22: 14.) “Book of life’ is the same 
as salvation. (3: 5.) ‘Key of David” means the 
power of David, and David here is not David but 
David’s son, that is, the Son of God. (8: 7.) 
“Crown” does not mean crown at all but Christian 
character. (3: 11.) “Pillar in the temple of my 
God” means place of influence in the kingdom. (3: 
12.) Neither a literal pillar nor a literal temple is to 
be thought of. ‘Door’ does not mean door but 
something spiritual analogous thereto. (38: 20.) 
“Seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, 
which are the seven Spirits of God.” (4: 5.) “A 
book written within and on the back, close sealed 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 231 


with seven seals,” stands for the secrets of future 
history which Christ will disclose, who is represented 
both by the “lion that is of the tribe of Judah” and 
the “Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, 
having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the 
seven Spirits of God.” (5: 1, 5, 6.) “Bowls full of 
incense” are “the prayers of the Saints.” (5: 8.) 
The angels, the living creatures and the elders are 
said to be in number “ten thousand times ten thou- 
sand, and thousands of thousands” (5: 11); but it 
is a vision he is recounting and he probably does not 
intend to be mathematically exact. To seal the 
“servants of God on their foreheads” is a figure of 
speech meaning salvation or divine approval. (7: 
3.) Then follows the statement that one hundred 
and forty and four thousand were sealed, twelve 
thousand from each of the twelve tribes of Is- 
rael (7: 4-8; 14: 1), but we are not to understand 
that just this number from each tribe of Israel are 
saved. The robes of the saints are said to be made 
“white in the blood of the Lamb” (7: 14); but ac- 
tual blood does not make garments white and 
“robes” here does not mean robes but souls, hearts, 
lives. “The Lamb that is in the midst of the throne 
shall be their shepherd.” (7: 17.) “Such men as 
have not the seal of God on their foreheads” are to 
be “tormented five months” (9: 5, 10); but cer- 
tainly “five months’ does not mean that length of 
time. “Forty and two months” and “a thousand 
two hundred and threescore days” signify probably 
other lengths of time than what they specify. (11: 
2-3; 13: 5.) If he had meant three and a half 
years he probably would have said so. The “two 
witnesses” that “shall prophesy a thousand two 


232 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth” 
are both “the two olive trees and the two candle- 
sticks.” (11: 4.) There is a “city, which spiritually 
is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord 
was crucified.” (11: 8.) The city is called by two 
names, Sodom and Egypt, but he does not seem to 
mean Jerusalem, where the Lord was actually cru- 
cified; he does not seem to mean a city at all. “Three 
days and a half” (11: 9, 11), does not signify, it 
seems, that length of time. The “woman arrayed 
with the sun” is not.Mary the mother of Jesus, but 
the kingdom of God or people of God. (12: 1.) It 
is doubtful if any one knows what ‘“‘time, and times, 
and half a time” means, except that it is something 
other than what is said. (12: 14.) It is hard to be- 
lieve that the number “six hundred and sixty and 
six” means that many units. (18: 18.) “Women” 
stands for spiritual infidelity and ‘virgins’ for saints, 
both men and women. (14: 4.) “Babylon” may 
mean Rome but certainly not Babylon. (14: 8; 
16: 19.) “Euphrates” signifies much more than 
that one river, if, indeed, it refers to the river 
by that name at all. (16: 12.) ‘“Har-Magedon,” I 
think, designates no battlefield but a spiritual 
conflict, “the war of the great day of God, the Al- 
mighty.” (16: 14-16.) A ‘“‘woman,” a “harlot,” 
is “Babylon.” (17: 5.) “The seven heads are seven 
mountains.” (17: 9.) “The ten horns that thou 
sawest are ten kings.” (17: 12.) ‘One hour” hardly 
means so little time as it designates. (17: 12.) “The 
waters which thou sawest, where the harlot sitteth, 
are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and ton- 
gues.” (17: 15.) “The fine linen is the righteous 
acts of the saints.” (19: 8.) “The bride, the wife 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 233 


of the Lamb” is “the holy city Jerusalem, coming 
down out of heaven from God” (21: 9-10), whose 
“length and breadth and height are equal,” each di- 
mension being “twelve thousand furlongs” or about 
fifteen hundred miles, (21: 16); that is, he says 
that the bride of the lamb is a city and that this 
city is a cube, fifteen hundred miles long, fifteen 
hundred miles wide and fifteen hundred miles high. 
He certainly did not mean that his language should 
be understood literally. If he did, it is “some city” 
and “some bride” that he describes. “I am the root 
and offspring of David, the bright and morning star.” 
6227416:) 

I think the point is now clear that very often in 
Revelation one thing is said and another is meant; 
or, to put it in another way, the Revelator as a rule 
expresses his thoughts in symbols, figures of speech 
and pictures. Therefore, in any given case there is 
great probability that the language is not to be 
taken literally, but figuratively or symbolically, and 
that some statements or words may have no thought 
value or significance at all, but serve only to fill 
out the picture, as is the case often in the parables. 

6. Now we must give a little attention to the 
question whether the writer of Revelation adopted 
or shared the Jewish expectation of a millennium. 
What this expectation was, and how it entered into 
Christian thought, has been well stated by Prof. 
David Smith. He says: 

“The course of history was viewed as a succession 
of ‘ages,’ and the early Christian imagination, pro- 
ceeding on the Jewish notion that the world was 
only some five thousand years old when the Savior 
came, saw in the story of Creation a programme of 


234 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


the future and recognized six ages corresponding 
to the six days of creation. The first, according 
to St. Augustine, extended from Adam to the Flood, 
the second from Noah to Abraham, the third from 
Abraham to David, the fourth from David to the 
Babylonian Captivity, the fifth from the Captivity 
to the Savior’s Birth, and the sixth from the Sav- 
ior’s Birth to the end of the world. And just as 
the six days of creation were succeeded by a Day 
of Rest, so the six ages will be followed by the Mil- 
lennium, a thousand years of peace. By and by 
the idea arose that each of the past ages had lasted 
a thousand years; and hence it was reckoned that 
the year 1000 a.p., would terminate the current age 
and witness the Lord’s Advent and the Final Judg- 
ment.” (Life and Letters of St. Paul, pp. 153-154.) 

That there was a Jewish expectation of a millen- 
nium of some kind and that it has had some influ- 
ence upon Christian eschatology is freely admitted. 
But that this Jewish notion is found in New Testa- 
ment literature is denied. This false idea, like many 
other false ideas, has come into Christian thought 
from Judaism, but does not belong there. That the 
writers of the New Testament, and even Jesus him- 
self, shared the Jewish belief that there would be on 
this earth a kingdom or civil government of right- 
eousness and blessedness is a pure assumption. And 
to affirm that they expected it to last a thousand 
years, as did the Jews, is hardly proper respect for 
our intelligence. Do we not know that Jesus re- 
pudiated such an idea? Do we not know that he 
told those who expected such a thing of him that 
they could not be his followers? (Jno. 6: 15, 26, 
65.) Do we not know that he was a martyr to non- 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 235 


conformity to Jewish notions? Do we not know 
that Paul’s life-long fight was against Jewish no- 
tions? That he saved Christianity from the ruin 
which the Jewish party in the first churches would 
have brought upon it? Did not Peter condemn all 
talk about a thousand years as idle garrulousness 
when he said that “one day is with the Lord as a 
thousand years and a thousand years as one day’’? 
The idea of a civil government on earth for a thou- 
sand years is not found in a single utterance of 
Jesus, Paul or Peter; much less that Christ 1s go- 
ing to “set it up” when he returns. Jesus, Peter 
and Paul taking up a Jewish idea that history has 
shown to be a vagary! Let infidels hawk all such 
wares and have the monopoly on all such com- 
modities, which may have some sensational and 
commercial value but no spiritual value. 

And we shall see that the apostle John also has 
not committed himself to this false and vain hope. 
In one passage he uses the expression, “a thousand 
years,” but he uses it as he chooses to use it and 
means no such thing as the Jews and the premillen- 
nialists mean by the millennium. In fact John tells 
us explicitly what he means by it. The apostle in the 
opening of his Gospel uses the word logos and ap- 
plies it to Christ. Does he by the use of this word 
commit himself to the logos doctrine of Philo the 
Jew? We let infidels affrm that. We know he 
does no such thing. But this was a common Greek 
word that he laid hold of and made to do service 
for him, such as he wanted done. So also he com- 
mandeers the expression, “a thousand years,” and 
presses it into service. The apostle is not a dull me- 
chanic joining words together by mechanical rules 


236 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


as some mechanical critics would have him do. He 
is a rhetorician. He is a master of words, doing 
execution with them, as Cesar did with soldiers. 
Words are things with life and breath when he 
arranges them in his phalanx. They have new life 
and new force when he commands them. 

Let us now have the passage before us. I give it 
in the translation of the American Union Version. 
Read it over several times and think upon it care- 
fully. Direct study of Scripture is essential and it 
is usually the most profitable method. For some 
the book of Revelation is buried under the rubbish 
of commentaries. 

“1 And I saw an angel coming down out of 
heaven, having the key of the abyss, and a great 
chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold of the 
dragon, the old serpent, which is the Devil and 
Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 and 
cast him into the abyss, and shut it, and sealed 
it over him, that he should lead the nations astray 
no more, until the thousand years should be fin- 
ished; after this he must be loosed a little time. 

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and 
judgment was given to them; and the souls of those 
that had been beheaded on account of the word of 
God, and whoever did not worship the beast, nor 
his image, and did not receive the mark on their 
forehead, and on their hand; and they lived and 
reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 The rest 
of the dead lived not until the thousand years should 
be finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Happy 
and holy is he that has part in the first resurrec- 
tion; over these the second death has no authority, 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 237 


but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and 
shall reign with him a thousand years. 

7 And when the thousand years are finished, Sa- 
tan will be loosed out of his prison, 8 and will go 
out to lead astray the nations that are in the four 
corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather 
them together to the war, the number of whom is 
as the sand of the sea. 9 And they went up on the 
breadth of the earth, and encompassed the camp 
of the saints, and the beloved city; and fire came 
down out of heaven, and devoured them. 10 And 
the Devil who led them astray was cast into the 
lake of fire and brimstone, where are also the beast 
and the false prophet; and they will be tormented 
day and night forever and ever.” 

As to the passage, notice first how many symbols 
and figures of speech there are in it. I believe all 
will admit that all these are such: “Key of the 
abyss,” “great chain,” “laid hold of,’ “dragon,” 
“serpent,” “bound,” “shut,” “sealed,” “loosed,” 
“thrones,” “beast,” “mark on their forehead and on 
their hand,” “priests,” “prison,’ “four corners of 
the earth,’ “Gog and Magog,” “war,” “camp of the 
saints,” “beloved city,” “lake of fire and brimstone.” 
If all these are figures of speech or symbols per- 
haps there are still more in the passage; in fact there 
must of necessity be more. 

Is there any certain starting point for us? Can 
we take the first step and be sure of our ground? 
Yes. We have a key to the front door. Let us 
open it; then, it may be, we can get further access 
to the house. The writer himself gives us the key. 

Jesus explained two of the parables. (Matt. 13: 
18-23, 37-43.) We know how valuable these expla- 


238 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


nations are. They are suggestions for the interpreta- 
tion of all the parable. 

Throughout Revelation John also explains his 
language as we have seen. Consider well then the 
definite statement of the meaning of an imagery of 
the last verse of our passages, namely, “lake of fire.” 
He says: “This is the second death, the lake of 
fire.” (20: 14.) A few verses ahead he makes the 
same explanation a second time, (21: 8); and once 
before he had used the expression in the same sense. 
(2: 11.) Of course he does not mean that the lake of 
fire is itself the second death, but that being cast 
into it is, or signifies, the second death. We have 
here a valuable key, and we have the right to use it 
for all it is worth. What now is the second death? 
It is eternal punishment to which the wicked and 
unbelieving are doomed. John says so. 

If eternal punishment is the second death it fol- 
lows naturally that in the conception of John, as 
well as according to Biblical history, the first death 
is the banishment and punishment that came upon 
the race on account of the first sin. “In the day that 
thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Gen. 2: 
17.) John chose not to consider in this connection 
physical death or else he counted it a part of the 
curse of the first death, which it is, 

We are now in the vestibule of the house, so to 
speak. We entered by the front door. We had the 
right to do it. The builder himself, the Revelator, 
put the key in our hand. We did not enter by the 
back way nor by picking the lock nor by lifting a 
window. We did not use a skeleton key. We used 
the builder’s own key, as he meant for us to do. 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 239 


Can we now make further progress? Can we 
unlock the next door and pass into the hall? We 
can. If eternal punishment is the second death, eter- 
nal life, or salvation in heaven, would, by analogy, 
be the second life. But John does not use this ex- 
pression. He uses, however, an expression corre- 
sponding to it but designating the experience that 
precedes it, namely, “the first resurrection” and tells 
us also what it means. He says in verse 5, explain- 
ing what he said in verse 4: “This is the first resur- 
rection.” Let us pay most earnest attention to this 
statement. 

What does the pronoun “this” refer to or mean? 
Of course, it does not refer to the preceding part of 
verse 5, but to what is said in verse 4; and it is 
further explained by what is said in verse 6. The 
point that we are now dealing with is the crux of our 
whole problem. What is “the first resurrection”? 
John tells us what it is. It is being upon “thrones” 
and exercising “judgment”; it is “living and reigning 
with Christ a thousand years.” He says so. Who is 
it that are on thrones and exercise judgment? The 
same persons that live and reign with Christ a thou- 
sand years. He says so. Who are these persons? 
Those that “had been beheaded (note the tense) on 
account of the testimony of Jesus, and on account 
of the word of God, and whoever did not worship 
the beast, nor his image, and did not receive the 
mark on their forehead, and on their hand.” Now 
that includes, not the martyrs only, but all the 
saved. John says so. Look at verse 6: “Happy and 
holy is he that has part in the first resurrection; 
over these the second death has no authority, but 
they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall 


240 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


reign with him a thousand years.” That is, all those 
who have “part in the first resurrection” do not have 
“part in the lake which burns with fire and brim- 
stone, which is the second death.” John says so. 
Those who have part in the “first resurrection” are, 
therefore, the saved. It is the saved then who live 
and reign with Christ a thousand years. That is, 
“living and reigning with Christ a thousand years,” 
being on “thrones” and exercising “judgment,” be- 
ing “priests of God and of Christ” and having “part 
in the first resurrection” are four vivid concrete ex- 
pressions descriptive of salvation and of saved peo- 
ple. John says so. It matters not what a premillen- 
nialist, a postmillennialist, a Jew, an infidel or a 
Christian may say to the contrary. Believing Reve- 
lation to be an inspired writing I accept the author’s 
interpretation of his own language, and I would 
continue to accept it, though an angel from heaven 
should affirm the contrary, unless he should con- 
vince me that the book is a forgery. I vote for John’s 
angel as against any modern angel or modern man 
that would dare to contradict him. (Cf. 1: 1.) 

The idea that “the first resurrection” is the resur- 
rection of the bodies of the righteous dead, that is, 
their being clothed again in their bodies, from which 
they had been absent and which have remained in 
their graves or returned to dust, becomes, as an in- 
terpretation of the expression in this connection, ri- 
diculous. I wonder how any Christian with in- 
sight into and reverence for the word of God can 
entertain it fora moment. Notice the language. He 
does not say that they were raised up that they 
might live and reign with Christ, nor does he say 
the living and reigning with Christ followed their 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 241 


resurrection, but that the living and reigning with 
Christ I'S “the first resurrection.” It is not said that 
it is the resurrection of the body; and this thought 
is absolutely excluded by the statement that “the 
souls of those that had been beheaded” constituted 
a part of those that ‘“‘sat on thrones” and that “lived 
and reigned with Christ.” ‘These martyrs in glory 
where living and reigning with Christ, while others 
on the earth before death, but at the same time, 
were living and reigning with him. This is what 
John says. 

That “first” in “first resurrection” has reference 
to the order of world events, and means the bodily 
resurrection of the saints and that this is to be fol- 
lowed after a thousand years by the bodily resur- 
rection of sinners is, therefore, an impossible ren- 
dering. To get all this out of the statement, “the 
rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years 
should be finished,’ is guessing, not interpreting. 
The reading of the Old Version, “lived not again,” 
unfortunately gave this wrong suggestion. It desig- 
nates the order of events in a believer’s experience. 
Regeneration is his first resurrection. Receiving a 
resurrection body is his second resurrection. 

We have now unlocked the second door and en- 
tered the spacious hallway. Again we used the key 
that the builder gave us. We had the right to use 
it. In fact, did we not do it we would show our- 
selves unworthy of inspecting his magnificent piece 
of workmanship. Henceforth, we shall find no more 
locked doors. They are closed but they will open 
at our touch. The apostle knew what we would 
need to know in order to understand him and he 
gave us the information. 


242 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


Notice how the conceptions of the four examples 
of concrete imagery, to which I have called atten- 
tion, fit the conceptions of the Christian life that 
we often find in the New Testament, especially in 
the writings of John and Paul. 

That the Christian life is a spiritual resurrection 
and that unsaved people are spiritually dead are 
common conceptions with Paul and John. (Cf. Col. 
S015. Rom:'6:.45( Jno; 63-21). 24° 6. ote mi Ore 
203" 1 JInows: 137) Roms 6: 237 Eph 2s ae 
who hold to immersion only as baptism make the 
argument that baptism is a picture not only of our 
death to the old life of sin but also of our resur- 
rection to the new life of righteousness, which we 
now experience. That is, baptism is a symbol of the 
first resurrection, of which we are now partakers. Je- 
sus according to Matthew also used such imagery. 
(Matt. 8: 22.) 

That Christians sit upon thrones as Christ does, 
or that they reign as he does, is a common con- 
ception in the New Testament. Christ sits upon 
a spiritual throne and so do they. Christ reigns 
by moral and spiritual influence and so do they. This 
is not something that is yet to be. This has been 
going on since the death and exaltation of Christ 
which was his enthronement. Jesus himself origi- 
nated both the thought and this use of the imagery, 
it seems. (Cf. Matt. 19: 28.) As Abraham, Isaac 
and Jacob have prominence in the kingdom of God 
so do the apostles. In that sense they sit on thrones 
and reign. And in the same sense all Christians 
sit on thrones and reign. Paul the thirteenth apos- 
tle reigns as the others do. Jesus said to his dis- 
ciples: ‘Ye are the salt of the earth.” We all un- 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 243 


derstand that statement. Well, that is reigning 
‘morally and spiritually. This kind of reigning will 
satisfy every Christian that is not ambitious and 
mean. Every moral and spiritual blessing that has 
come to the world in nineteen centuries has come 
from Christ and his people. That is reigning. Every 
cleansing fire that has burnt out the impurities of 
society has come from Christ and his people. That 
is the dispensing of judgment. All seriously-minded 
and thoughtful people know that the only hope of 
the world is the gospel of Christ which his real fol- 
lowers, and they only, proclaim. That is world domi- 
nation, the only kind that we as Christians should 
desire. So Jesus says: ‘He that overcometh, I will 
give to him to sit down with me in my throne, as 
I also overcame, and sat down with my Father in 
his throne.” (Rev. 3: 21.) It 1s in this book of 
Revelation that God’s people are described as “a 
kingdom and priests.” (5: 10.) So also in the 
passage we are dealing with it says: “They shall be 
priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with 
mae? (ote l-Pet,.2: 9.) 

How Christians are priests we understand quite 
well. It means that every Christian has direct ac- 
cess to Christ and God. There is no intermediary or 
third party. It means that they are persons through 
whom God mediates to the world his salvation. 
When it is said that Christians are priests we do not 
think of robes and bells and candles and ceremonial 
performances. That is, evangelical Christians and 
most Protestants do not. Why do we not apply the 
same good sense to the Bible when it speaks of 
Christians on thrones and reigning? But many think 
immediately of literal thrones and golden crowns. 


244 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


The whole trouble is with our thinking. The tempta- 
tion to idolatry is a mighty downward pull, strong 
and constant as the pull of gravity in the material 
world. 

This literal king business is a condemned business, 
condemned both by God and by men. God never 
wanted a king in Israel and he tolerated the 
institution of royalty as he tolerated divorcee. He 
let the last king of Judah be dragged into cap- 
tivity by a hook in his nose. The king business, like 
the priest .business, belongs to the tutelage of the 
race. It isa thing of the past and not of the future. 
And yet many associate the golden age of the world 
with actual kings and thrones and all the accom- 
panying regalia and paraphernalia. They both be- 
long to the childhood of the race, as stick horses and 
tin soldiers belong to the childhood of men. 

Imagine me, for example, sitting on a literal 
throne somewhere, say, on the Mount of Olives. 
But every other Christian is sitting on a little throne, 
too. ‘There would not be room enough on the Mount 
of Olives, nor in all Palestine, to plant our thrones. 
There we all sit with shining crowns, flourishing our 
golden scepters and not a subject to black our boots. 
I abdicate my throne right now. 

Now examine the statements concerning Satan, — 
his being bound a thousand years and cast into the 
abyss. (20: 1-3.) What is the meaning? 

Notice that we must regard this either as a com- 
plete or a partial depriving of Satan of his power. 
It must for two reasons be the latter. 

The first reason is that the complete stripping of 
Satan of power follows in our text immediately 
aiter this limitation of his power. The severer judg- 


A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 245 


ment and punishment are described in verse 10. 
This binding of Satan was something less than a 
complete taking-away of his power. 

The second reason is that Christ himself when 
he was on earth bound Satan. He said so. “How 
can one enter into the strong man’s house, and 
seize on his goods,” he asked, “unless he first bind 
the strong man? and then will he plunder his house.” 
(Matt. 12: 29.) The strong man is Satan. The 
stronger man, who binds him, is Jesus. This is 
what Jesus says. But Satan is not so bound as to 
have no power at all. It is a limiting of his power, 
a circumscribing of his influence and activities, that 
is meant. John saw that this limiting of Satan’s 
power would continue for a “thousand years,’ when 
the “lid would be lifted,” and Satan would again 
have liberty and power for a “little time.” Some 
years ago I thought out for myself this interpreta- 
tion and the proof as just cited. I thought I could 
claim originality for it. But to my chagrin I dis- 
covered the other day that Augustine made the 
same interpretation supported by the same words 
of Jesus. (City of God, 20, 7.) I cannot, therefore, 
claim originality for the interpretation, but there is 
the more assurance that it is sound. 

That Satan’s power is greatly limited in the Chris- 
tian age but not wholly destroyed is certainly the 
fact. Consider that Jesus said, as he approached 
his death on the cross: “Now is the prince of this 
world cast out.” (Jno. 12: 31. Cf. 16: 11.) But he 
did not cast him out in every sense, for he said 
aiterward: “The prince of the world cometh: and 
hath nothing in me.” (Jno. 14: 30.) Here are con- 
ceptions of the limiting of Satan or the casting out 


246 A STUDY OF THE KINGDOM 


of Satan, that should guide us in interpreting Rev. 
20: 1-3. There ought to be no doubt at all as to the 
soundness and safety of this method of procedure. 

If now we have reasoned correctly up to this 
point, it is easy to say what “the thousand years” 
signifies. It is the Christian age extending to “a 
little time” before Christ comes again. “The thou- 
sand years” have become nearly two thousand years. 
Or are we now in the “little time” that follows that 
period? I do not know. But this is certain: 

We are either in the millennium or have passed 
through it, and have entered into the “little time,” 
when from all quarters attacks are made on the very 
citadel of Christianity itself. 

It may be that such a time is now in the begin- 
ning. How long it will last, I know not. It 1s a 
“little time.” It is my opinion that all premillen- 
nialists and many postmillennialists have worked 
the idea of the millennium into something far afield 
from what John had in mind when he used the ex- 
pression, “a thousand years.” 

Why did John use the expression “a thousand 
years”? Why does he keep us guessing as to such 
important events? I am convinced that he intended 
to keep us guessing, and that he has succeeded splen- 
didly. 

There are yet other parts of this remarkable speci- 
men of literary architecture, that we have not in- 
spected; but, if one admits the principles which we 
have developed, he now has the proper angle from 
which to view them and can proceed without further — 
help. If he does not admit these principles, further 
discussion would not help him. He that wills to be 
ignorant will be ignorant. 





Date Due 


a 


¥ 


+. 


i ee 


J“ 


4 
ia 
oh 

4 
‘* 

i 

j 





HAL 


eologice 


eOlOK 


e 


(il 


Cc 


Prin 


| 


Lo) 
(oe) 
%) 
198) 
OD 
© 
© 
>. ae 
© 
N 
5 ge 
© 
< 
ve 








